National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing and Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7150-8]

RIN 2060-AE82

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing and Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category and the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category. The Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category includes many previously unregulated organic chemical processing units at major sources. The Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category includes the manufacture of a number of coatings including paints, inks, and adhesives. The EPA has determined that both source categories include facilities that are major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), including toluene, methanol, xylene, hydrogen chloride, and methylene chloride. Methylene chloride is considered to be a probable human carcinogen and the other pollutants can cause noncancer health effects in humans. These proposed NESHAP will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources in the relevant source categories to meet HAP emission limitations and work practice standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The proposed subpart FFFF will reduce HAP emissions by approximately 28,000 Megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (30,900 tons per year (tpy)), and proposed subpart HHHHH will reduce HAP emissions by approximately 5,670 Mg/yr (6,250 tpy).

DATES:

Comments: Submit comments on or before June 3, 2002.

Public Hearing:

If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by April 24, 2002, a public hearing will be held at 10 a.m. on May 6, 2002.

ADDRESSES:

Comments:

By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-96-04, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-96-04, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

).

Public Hearing:

If a public hearing is held, it will be held in the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby.

Docket:

Docket No. A-96-04 contains supporting information used in developing the NESHAP. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information about the proposed NESHAP, contact Mr. Randy McDonald, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5402, electronic mail address mcdonald.randy@epa.gov. For information about the public hearing, contact Ms. Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5607, electronic mail address noell.maria@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments:

Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to:

a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

Electronic comments must be submitted either as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems or on disks in WordPerfect® version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A-96-04. No confidential business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Randy McDonald, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by the EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice to the commenter.

Public Hearing.

Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Maria Noell at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Noell to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed NESHAP.

Docket.

The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information considered by the EPA in the development of these proposed NESHAP. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated NESHAP and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to these proposed NESHAP are available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

Worldwide Web (WWW).

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed NESHAP will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed NESHAP will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.

The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Regulated Entities.

Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include those listed in the following table.

Category

SIC

NAICS

Examples of regulated entities

Industry

282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 386

3251, 3252, 3253, 3254, 3255, 3256, 3259, except 325131 and 325181

Producers of specialty organic chemicals, paints, coatings, adhesives, inks, explosives, certain polymers and resins, and certain pesticide intermediates.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.2435 and § 63.7985 of the proposed NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

Outline.

The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background

A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?

B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?

C. What is the history of the source categories?

D. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants emitted from the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing and the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source categories?

II. Summary of the Proposed NESHAP

A. What source categories and subcategories are affected by these proposed NESHAP?

B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the emissions?

C. What is the affected source?

D. What are the emission limits, operating limits, and other standards?

E. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

F. What are the continuous compliance provisions?

G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?

H. How will the proposed subpart FFFF be incorporated into Title V permits?

III. Rationale for Selecting Proposed Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

A. How did we select the source categories?

B. How did we select the affected source?

C. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed standards for existing and new sources?

D. How did we select the format of the standards?

E. How did we select the testing and initial compliance requirements?

F. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?

G. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?

H. What is the relationship of these proposed NESHAP to other rules?

I. What types of comments are being specifically requested by the Administrator?

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing

B. Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

I. Background

A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and some area sources of HAP, and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The categories of major sources covered by today's proposed NESHAP are described in section I.C. Major sources of HAP are those that are located within a contiguous area and under common control and have the potential to emit greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable, taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control is commonly referred to as MACT.

The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that all major sources achieve the level of control already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).

In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. In considering whether to establish standards more stringent than the floor, we must consider cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What Is the History of the Source Categories?

1. Initial Source Categories

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to establish rules for categories of emission sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, we published an initial list of 174 source categories to be regulated (57 FR 31576). The listing was our best attempt to identify major sources of HAP by manufacturing category. Following the publication of this listing, we published a schedule for the promulgation of emission standards for each of the 174 listed source categories. At the time the initial list was published, we recognized that we might have to revise the list

from time to time as better information became available.

2. Changes to the Initial List

Based on information we collected in 1995, we realized that several of the original source categories on the list had similar process equipment, emission characteristics and applicable control technologies. Additionally, many of these source categories were on the same schedule for promulgation, by November 15, 2000. Therefore, we decided to combine a number of source categories from the original listing into one broad set of emission standards. On November 7, 1996, we published a notice combining 21 source categories from the initial list of 174 into the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Processes source category (61 FR 57602).

Twelve of the 21 source categories were listed under the miscellaneous process industry group on the initial list. These include: benzyltrimethylammonium chloride production, carbonyl sulfide production, chelating agents production, chlorinated paraffins production, ethylidene norbornene production, explosives production, hydrazine production, photographic chemicals production, phthalate plasticizers production, rubber chemicals production, symmetrical tetrachloropyridine production, and OBPA/1,3-diisocyanate production. Eight of the 21 source categories were listed under the polymers and resins industry group. These include: alkyd resins production, polyester resins production, polyvinyl alcohol production, polyvinyl acetate emulsions production, polyvinylbutyral production, polymerized vinylidene chloride production, polymethylmethacrylate production, and maleic anhydride copolymers production. The last of the 21 source categories is the manufacture of paints, coatings, and adhesives.

Along with these 21 source categories, the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Processes category was also defined in the

Federal Register

notice to include organic chemical manufacturing defined by SIC codes 282, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, and 386 which are not being covered by any other MACT standard. One example is the coverage of batch process vents from reactors in the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI) that are excluded from the provisions of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON). Another example, also an exclusion in the HON, is the coverage of HAP emissions from SOCMI processes in which HAP are used only as solvents. The Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Processes source category would also cover production of pesticide intermediates that are not covered by the Pesticide Active Ingredient NESHAP, as well as materials not considered primary products under the Group I and IV Polymers and Resins NESHAP. In addition to the 21 listed source categories, two other source categories are to be subsumed into the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Processes source category. These are quaternary ammonium compounds production and ammonium sulfate production from caprolactam by-product plants.

3. Grouping Into Two Source Categories

On November 18, 1999, we published a

Federal Register

notice describing changes to the source category list (64 FR 63035). At that time, we also described our intent to group the source categories into two new source categories instead of one. The two new source categories are called the “Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing” source category and the “Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing” source category. During our review of the data, we decided that the emission sources in the miscellaneous coating manufacturing industry should be regulated differently from other miscellaneous organic chemical processes because their emission stream could be characterized more narrowly and standards could be tailored for these characteristics. For example, coatings manufacturing involves mixing and blending of raw materials at ambient temperatures. Emissions from these operations generally result from the displacement of materials during processing. Therefore, the proposed standards for process vents from coatings process vessels are tailored to specific condenser controls operating on saturated streams at ambient conditions. Conversely, organic chemical manufacturing involves chemical reactions and separation processes conducted at elevated temperatures. Emissions from these processes result from exothermic reactions, vessel heating, gas sparging, depressurizations, displacements, as well as other events, and emission stream characteristics vary in concentration, flowrate, and temperature. Because emission stream characteristics vary extensively in the broader source category, the compliance options are structured to accommodate a wide range of conditions. The difference in conditions and emission characteristics between the two source categories provides the basis for today's proposed NESHAP, which set MACT standards for two separate source categories in the proposed subparts FFFF and HHHHH of 40 CFR part 63.

D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the Pollutants Emitted From Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing and Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Categories?

Today's proposed NESHAP protect air quality and promote the public health by reducing emissions of some of the HAP listed in section 112(b)(1) of the CAA. The HAP emitted by the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing and Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source categories include but are not limited to methanol, hydrogen chloride, cresols, methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), toluene, vinyl acetate, xylene, hydrogen fluoride, hexane, and methyl chloride. Exposure to these compounds has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects.

The HAP that would be controlled with these NESHAP are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse health effects include chronic (long-term) health disorders (

e.g.,

irritation and damage to nasal membranes; damage to the liver, kidneys, and testicles) and acute health disorders (

e.g.,

irritation of eyes, throat, and mucous membranes; dizziness, headache, and nausea). Three of the HAP have been classified as probable or possible human carcinogens.

We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities covered by the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing and Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing NESHAP, and the people living around the facilities, that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these facilities and potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the NESHAP will reduce emissions and subsequent exposures.

Acute (short-term) or chronic (long-term) exposure of humans to methanol by inhalation or ingestion may result in blurred vision, headache, dizziness, and nausea. No information is available on the reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects of methanol in humans. Birth defects have been observed in the offspring of rats and mice exposed to methanol by

inhalation. A methanol inhalation study using rhesus monkeys reported a decrease in the length of pregnancy and limited evidence of impaired learning ability in offspring. We have not classified methanol with respect to carcinogenicity.

Hydrogen chloride, also called hydrochloric acid, is corrosive to the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Acute inhalation exposure may cause eye, nose, and respiratory tract irritation and inflammation and pulmonary edema in humans. Dermal contact may produce severe burns, ulceration, and scarring. Chronic occupational exposure to hydrochloric acid has been reported to cause gastritis, bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. Prolonged exposure to low concentrations may also cause dental discoloration and erosion. No information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects of hydrochloric acid in humans. In rats exposed to hydrochloric acid by inhalation, altered estrus cycles have been reported in females, and increased fetal mortality and decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring. We have not classified hydrochloric acid for carcinogenicity.

Acute inhalation exposure by humans to mixed cresols results in respiratory tract irritation, with symptoms such as dryness, nasal constriction, and throat irritation. Cresols are also strong dermal irritants. No information is available on the chronic effects of mixed cresols in humans, but animal studies have reported effects on the blood, liver, kidney, and central nervous system, and reduced body weight from oral and inhalation exposure to mixed cresols. No information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects of mixed cresols in humans. Animal studies with oral exposure have reported developmental effects, but only at doses toxic to the mother, and no reproductive effects. Only anecdotal information is available on the carcinogenic effects of mixed cresols in humans. Several animal studies suggest that individual cresol compounds (o-cresol, m-cresol, and p-cresol) may act as tumor promoters. We have classified o-cresol, m-cresol, and p-cresol as Group C, possible human carcinogens.

Acute exposure to methylene chloride by inhalation affects the nervous system, causing decreased visual, auditory, and motor functions. These effects are reversible once exposure ceases. The effects of chronic exposure to methylene chloride suggest that the central nervous system is a potential target in both humans and animals. Limited animal studies have reported developmental effects. Human data are inconclusive regarding methylene chloride and cancer. Animal studies have shown increases in liver and lung cancer and benign mammary gland tumors following the inhalation of methylene chloride. We have classified methylene chloride as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen.

Acute inhalation exposure to MEK in humans results in irritation to the eyes, nose, and throat. Limited information is available on the chronic effects of MEK in humans. Chronic inhalation studies in animals have reported slight neurological, liver, kidney, and respiratory effects. No information is available on the developmental, reproductive, or carcinogenic effects of MEK in humans. Developmental effects, including decreased fetal weight and fetal malformations, have been reported in mice and rats exposed to MEK via inhalation and ingestion. We have classified MEK in Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.

Acute inhalation of toluene by humans may cause effects to the central nervous system, such as fatigue, sleepiness, headache, and nausea, as well as irregular heartbeat. People who abuse toluene-based products by deliberately inhaling their vapors have shown adverse nervous system effects. Symptoms include tremors, decreased brain size, involuntary eye movements, and impaired speech, hearing, and vision. Chronic inhalation exposure of humans to lower levels of toluene also causes irritation of the upper respiratory tract, eye irritation, sore throat, nausea, dizziness, headaches, and difficulty with sleep. Studies of children of pregnant women exposed by inhalation to toluene or to mixed solvents have reported nervous system problems, facial and limb abnormalities, and delayed development. However, these effects may not be attributable to toluene alone.

Acute inhalation exposure of workers to vinyl acetate has resulted in eye and upper respiratory tract irritation. Chronic occupational exposure results in upper respiratory tract irritation, cough, and/or hoarseness. Nasal epithelial lesions and irritation and inflammation of the respiratory tract were observed in mice and rats chronically exposed by inhalation. No information is available on the reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects of vinyl acetate in humans. Some limited animal data suggest reduced body weight, fetal growth retardation, and minor skeletal fetal defects at high exposure levels. An increased incidence of nasal cavity tumors has been observed in rats exposed by inhalation. We have not classified vinyl acetate for carcinogenicity.

Acute inhalation of mixed xylenes (a mixture of three closely related compounds) in humans may cause irritation of the nose and throat, nausea, vomiting, gastric irritation, mild transient eye irritation, and neurological effects. Chronic inhalation of xylenes in humans may result in nervous system effects such as headache, dizziness, fatigue, tremors, and incoordination. Other reported effects include labored breathing, heart palpitation, severe chest pain, abnormal electrocardiograms, and possible effects on the blood and kidneys.

Acute inhalation exposure to gaseous hydrogen fluoride can cause respiratory damage in humans, including severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Chronic exposure to fluoride at low levels has a beneficial effect of dental cavity prevention and may also be useful for the treatment of osteoporosis. Exposure to higher levels of fluoride through drinking water may cause dental fluorosis or mottling, while very high exposures through drinking water or air can result in skeletal fluorosis. The only developmental effect observed from fluoride exposure in humans is dental fluorosis which can occur in a child's teeth when a mother receives high levels of fluoride during pregnancy. One study reported menstrual irregularities in women occupationally exposed to fluoride. We have not classified hydrogen fluoride for carcinogenicity.

Acute inhalation exposure of humans to high levels of hexane causes mild central nervous system effects, including dizziness, giddiness, slight nausea, and headache. Chronic exposure to hexane in air causes numbness in the extremities, muscular weakness, blurred vision, headache, and fatigue. One study reported testicular damage in rats exposed to hexane through inhalation. No information is available on the carcinogenic effects of hexane in humans or animals. We have classified hexane in Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.

Acute exposure to high concentrations of methyl chloride in humans has caused severe neurological effects including convulsions, coma, and death. Methyl chloride has also caused effects on heart rate, blood pressure, liver, and kidneys in humans. Chronic animal studies have shown liver, kidney, spleen, and central nervous system effects. No studies are available concerning developmental or reproductive effects of methyl chloride in humans. Inhalation studies have demonstrated that methyl chloride

causes reproductive effects in male rats, with effects including testicular lesions and decreased sperm production. Human cancer data are limited. Animal studies have noted kidney tumors in male mice. We have classified methyl chloride as a Group C, possible human carcinogen.

II. Summary of the Proposed NESHAP

A. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by These Proposed NESHAP?

As noted in section I.C of this preamble, we are creating two new source categories from the combination of several existing source categories. These two source categories, which are affected by today's proposed NESHAP, are called the “Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing” source category and the “Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing” source category. There are no subcategories.

B. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the Emissions?

The sources of emissions at both source categories are process vents, storage tanks, equipment leaks, transfer operations, and wastewater systems. Total baseline HAP emissions (

i.e.,

the current level of control) for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category are estimated to be on the order of 44,700 Mg/yr (49,300 tons/yr). Emissions from equipment leaks account for the largest fraction of emissions, or approximately 46 percent of the total. Emissions from process vents and wastewater systems account for approximately 25 percent and 28 percent of the total, respectively. Emissions from storage tanks and transfer operations account for less than 1 percent of the total.

Total baseline HAP emissions for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category are estimated to be 7,780 Mg/yr (8,580 tons/yr). Emissions from mixing vessels and equipment leaks make up nearly 86 percent and 13 percent of the total, respectively; less than 1 percent of the emissions are from wastewater, transfer operations, and storage tanks.

C. What Is the Affected Source?

The affected source for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category is the facilitywide collection of miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process units (MCPU), wastewater treatment and conveyance systems, transfer operations and associated ancillary equipment such as heat exchange systems. The MCPU includes equipment necessary to operate a process, equipment components, and associated storage tanks.

The affected source for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category is the miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations at the facility. These operations include storage tanks, process vessels, equipment components, wastewater treatment and conveyance systems, transfer operations, and ancillary sources such as heat exchange systems.

D. What Are the Emission Limitations, Operating Limitations and Other Standards?

The proposed emission limitations and work practice standards are in Tables 1 through 8 of the proposed subpart FFFF and Tables 1 through 7 of the proposed subpart HHHHH and are summarized below.

1. Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Source Category

We are proposing separate standards for batch and continuous process vents. For batch process vents, the proposed standards would require you to reduce uncontrolled HAP emissions from the sum of all batch process vents within the process by 98 percent if uncontrolled emissions exceed 4,540 kilograms per year (kg/yr) (10,000 pounds per year (lb/yr)). No control of vents would be required for processes that are limited to uncontrolled emissions of 4,540 kg/yr (10,000 lb/yr), as calculated on a rolling 365-day basis. A second control option that we are proposing today for batch vents is to reduce the sum of all batch process vents within the process by 95 percent using recovery devices. You may also comply with the alternative standard, which requires you to achieve specified outlet concentrations for total organic compounds (TOC) and total hydrogen halides and halogens on a continuous basis. Both emission limits are 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) for combustion devices, and 50 ppmv for noncombustion devices. We defined the term “process” to include all equipment which collectively functions to produce a material or family of materials that are covered by the source category.

For continuous process vents, the proposed standards would require control of vents determined to have a total resource effectiveness (TRE) index equal to or less than 2.6. The proposed standards would require you to reduce HAP emissions by at least 98 percent by weight if the TRE of the outlet gaseous stream after the last recovery device is above 2.6, or to reduce the outlet TOC concentration to 20 ppmv or less. For continuous process vents, we reference the process vent standards contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.

For both continuous and batch process vents, we are proposing to allow you to comply by combusting streams in hazardous waste incinerators that comply with the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or in boilers, flares, or process heaters that meet certain design and operating requirements. Additionally, you must also achieve less than 20 ppmv halogen or hydrogen halide concentration if you demonstrate compliance with the 20 ppmv TOC alternative standard or the 20 ppmv TOC concentration limit standards.

The proposed new source standards for batch and continuous process vents follow the same formats as described above. However, the applicability triggers are more stringent. All batch vents within a process for which the uncontrolled emissions from batch vents exceed 1,360 kg/yr (3,000 lb/yr) must be reduced by either 98 percent using a control device or 95 percent using a recovery device. All continuous process vents with a TRE of less than or equal to 5.0 must be controlled by 98 percent. The same options for control using hazardous waste incinerators, other combustion devices, and the alternative and concentration standards are also available for new sources.

We are proposing storage tank standards that would require existing sources to control emissions from storage tanks having capacities greater than or equal to 38 cubic meters (m

3

) (10,000 gallons (gal)) and storing material with a HAP partial pressure of greater than 6.9 kilopascals (kPa) (1.0 pound per square inch absolute (psia)). For new sources, the proposed standards would require control of storage tanks having capacities greater than or equal to 38 m

3

(10,000 gal) and storing material with a HAP partial pressure of greater than 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia). For both existing and new sources, the required control would be to use a floating roof or to reduce the organic HAP emissions by 95 percent by weight or more.

The proposed standards for wastewater, transfer operations, maintenance wastewater, and heat exchange systems are identical to those required under the HON. At existing sources, control would be required for wastewater streams with HAP listed on Table 9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G (Table 9 HAP), if the concentration exceeds 1,000 parts per million by weight (ppmw) and the flow exceeds 10 liters per minute (lpm), or if the concentration of Table 9 HAP exceeds

10,000 ppmw at any flowrate. The proposed control requirements are to convey the wastewater streams through controlled sewers using vapor suppression techniques to treatment where the Table 9 HAP are removed or destroyed, thereby reducing Table 9 HAP emissions. At new sources, the proposed conveyance and control requirements are identical to those for existing sources, but the applicability triggers on individual streams are more stringent. In addition to controlling streams that meet the thresholds for existing sources, control would also be required for streams containing HAP listed on Table 8 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G (Table 8 HAP), if the concentration exceeds 10 ppmw and the wastewater stream flowrate is greater than 0.02 lpm.

For transfer operations, we are proposing to require the HON level of control for transfer racks that load greater than 0.65 million liters per year (l/yr) (0.17 million gallons per year (gal/yr)) of liquid products that contain organic HAP with a partial pressure of 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia). Each transfer rack that meets these thresholds would be required to be controlled to reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 98 percent by weight or more, or to have displaced vapors returned to the process or originating container. For sources such as maintenance wastewater and heat exchanger systems, we are proposing to require a plan for minimizing emissions and a monthly leak detection program, respectively, as was done in the HON.

For equipment leaks, we are proposing to require implementation of the leak detection and repair (LDAR) program that is contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. This LDAR program is also identical to the program in the proposed Consolidated Air Rule (63 FR 57748, October 28, 1998). This LDAR program achieves the same reductions as the HON LDAR program, but contains options for more directed monitoring of components that have been identified to leak, thereby reducing the monitoring burden relative to that of the HON LDAR program.

The proposed subpart FFFF also includes a pollution-prevention alternative for existing sources that meets the control level of the MACT floor and that you may implement in lieu of the emission limitations and work practice standards described above. The pollution-prevention alternative provides a way for facilities to comply with MACT by reducing overall consumption of HAP in their processes; therefore, it is not applicable for HAP that are generated in the process. Specifically, you must demonstrate that the production-indexed consumption of HAP has decreased by at least 65 percent from a 3-year average baseline set no earlier than the 1994 through 1996 calendar years. The production-indexed consumption factor is expressed as the mass of HAP consumed divided by the mass of product produced. The numerator in the factor is the total consumption of the HAP, which describes all the different areas where it can be consumed, either through losses to the environment, consumption in the process as a reactant, or otherwise destroyed.

Cleaning is considered part of the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process. Therefore, cleaning fluids are considered to be process fluids, and you would be subject to the same process vent, storage tank, equipment leak, and wastewater provisions when using cleaning fluids as when using other process fluids.

2. Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category

The proposed standards for coating manufacturing cover vents from process vessels, storage tanks, wastewater, transfer operations, equipment leaks, and ancillary heat exchange operations.

The proposed standards require both stationary and portable process vessels with capacities greater than or equal to 0.94 m

3

(250 gal) to be equipped with covers. Additionally, organic HAP emissions from stationary vessels at existing sources are required to be reduced by at least 75 percent by weight from an uncontrolled baseline, in addition to the requirement for covers. Stationary and portable vessels at new sources would be required to be equipped with covers and to reduce organic HAP emissions by at least 95 percent by weight. Alternatively, for both new and existing sources, you may use a condenser operated at specified temperature limits.

The proposed standards for affected storage tanks at both existing and new sources would require either organic HAP emissions reductions of 90 percent by weight or more, or the use of floating roofs or vapor balancing. For existing sources, affected storage tanks are those that have capacities greater than or equal to 75 m

3

(20,000 gal) and store material with a vapor pressure of 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia). For new sources, affected storage tanks are those with capacities equal to or greater than 75 m

3

(20,000 gal) but less than 94 m

3

(25,000 gal) and storing material that has a vapor pressure of 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia) or greater, and tanks with capacities greater than 94 m

3

(25,000 gal) storing material that has a vapor pressure of 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia).

For wastewater at existing sources, the proposed NESHAP would require that wastewater containing a total organic Table 9 HAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart G) concentration of 4,000 ppmw or greater be conveyed in controlled sewers and treated to remove or destroy organic HAP. The compliance procedures cross referenced from part 63 allow for offsite control of wastewaters provided the offsite source submit to EPA written certification that the transferee will manage and treat any affected wastewater or residual in accordance with the requirements of the proposed NESHAP. For new sources, the applicability triggers for control would be more stringent, affecting all streams with Table 9 HAP concentrations greater than or equal to 2,000 ppmw.

We also note that the definition of wastewater for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category (proposed subpart HHHHH) differs from the definition of wastewater for proposed subpart FFFF. This definition includes HAP-containing water, raw material, intermediate, product, by-product, co-product, or waste material that exits equipment in a process. This definition is being proposed to capture waste solvent that may be generated in a process and sent to a recovery operation. In these cases, the material exiting the process equipment would be considered an affected wastewater stream if it met the HAP concentration limits and therefore would be required to be managed as such. We think that the wastewater standards are appropriate for these streams considering that their characteristics reflect wastes sent offsite for destruction.

Proposed standards for transfer operations would require 75 percent control of HAP emissions from product loading to tank trucks and railcars if the amount of material transferred contains at least 11.4 million l/yr (3.0 million gal/yr) of HAP, and the material has a HAP partial pressure greater than or equal to 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia). Acceptable control strategies also include routing displaced vapors back to the process, or the use of condensers operated below specified temperature limits.

As with the standards for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing, we are proposing to require the LDAR program contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for control of equipment leaks. For maintenance wastewater and heat exchanger systems, we are proposing to require a plan for

minimizing emissions and a monthly leak detection program, respectively, as was done in the HON.

Cleaning operations are considered part of the miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations (like mixing). Therefore, cleaning fluids are considered to be process fluids, and the requirements for process vessels, storage tanks, equipment leaks, and wastewater systems that apply to other process operations also apply to cleaning operations.

E. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

1. Process Vents

The proposed subpart FFFF would require calculation of uncontrolled emissions as a first step in demonstrating compliance with the 98 percent or 95 percent reduction requirement for batch process vents. If you choose to control vents using the alternative standard or using specified combustion devices, this initial calculation of uncontrolled emissions is not required. For continuous process vents, the proposed subpart FFFF would require calculation of the TRE index values using the procedures contained in the HON for continuous process vents.

For stationary process vessels in the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category, you have the option of achieving a specified condenser exit gas temperature (based on vapor pressure) in lieu of calculating uncontrolled emissions as the first step in demonstrating the 75 percent reduction for existing sources or 95 percent reduction for new and reconstructed sources.

To verify that the required reductions have been achieved, you must either test or use calculation methodologies, depending on the emission stream characteristics, control device, and the type of process vent. Initial compliance demonstration provisions for batch vents in Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing sources and stationary process vessels at Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing sources reference the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG). Therefore, process vents control devices handling greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) of HAP must be tested, while engineering assessments are allowed for control devices with lower loads and for condensers. Performance test provisions in both source categories consider worst-case emissions for devices controlling process vents.

For each continuous process vent with a TRE less than or equal to 2.6, compliance with the percent reduction emission limitation must be verified through measurement (testing).

2. Storage Tanks, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater

For demonstrating compliance with various requirements, the proposed NESHAP allow you to either conduct performance tests or document compliance using engineering calculations. The initial compliance demonstration procedures reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for storage tanks complying using control devices and transfer operations, subpart WW for storage tanks complying using floating roofs, and subpart G for wastewater sources.

3. Equipment Leaks

To document compliance with the LDAR provisions, the proposed NESHAP require you to demonstrate that an LDAR program meeting the requirements of the Generic MACT in subpart UU of 40 CFR part 63 is in use.

F. What Are Continuous Compliance Provisions?

The proposed NESHAP require monitoring to determine whether you are in compliance with emission limitations on an ongoing basis. This monitoring is done either by continuously measuring HAP emissions reductions or by continuously measuring a site-specific operational parameter, the value of which you would establish during the initial compliance demonstration. The operating parameter is defined as the minimum or maximum value established for a control device or process parameter that, if achieved on a daily basis by itself or in combination with one or more other operating parameter values, determines whether you are complying with the applicable emission limits. These parameters are required to be monitored at 15-minute intervals throughout the operation of the control device.

Continuous, or 15-minute monitoring, is not required for all sources. For emission sources not equipped with control devices or falling below applicability trigger levels, such as the 4,540 kg/yr (10,000 lb/yr) emission limit for the sum of batch vents within a process below which no control is required, you must monitor the number of batches to demonstrate that you continuously fall below the yearly emission limit. For control devices that do not control more than 1 ton per year of HAP emissions, only a daily verification of the operating parameter is required, as is provided in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. To demonstrate compliance with work practice standards, such as the requirement to maintain floating roofs, inspection of equipment serves as the monitoring demonstration and is required only on a periodic (yearly) basis.

G. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements?

If you are subject to the proposed NESHAP, you would be required to fulfill all reporting requirements outlined in the General Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The sections of subpart A that apply to the proposed NESHAP are designated in Table 21 of the proposed subpart FFFF and Table 19 of the proposed subpart HHHHH. In addition, we have included recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are specific to these proposed NESHAP. For example, you are required to submit a precompliance report if you choose to comply using an alternative monitoring approach, use an engineering assessment to demonstrate compliance, or comply using a control device handling less than 1 ton per year of HAP emissions. Other notifications that are required by other MACT standards, such as the Initial Notification and the Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS), are also required by these proposed NESHAP and are identified in § 63.2540 of the proposed subpart FFFF and § 63.8070 of the proposed subpart HHHHH.

The Initial Notification is required within 120 days of the effective date of the NESHAP. The report, which is very brief, serves to alert appropriate agencies (State agencies and EPA Regional Offices) of the existence of your affected source and puts them on notice for future compliance actions. The NOCS, which is due on the compliance date of the NESHAP, is a comprehensive report that describes the affected source and the strategy being used to comply. The NOCS is also an important aspect of the title V permitting strategy for sources subject to subpart FFFF, which is discussed in section II.H of this preamble.

H. How Will the Proposed Subpart FFFF Be Incorporated Into Title V Permits?

Title V requires operating permits to assure compliance with all applicable requirements at a source, including the proposed subpart FFFF where it applies. Most existing sources that will become subject to the proposed subpart FFFF upon promulgation will already be

operating under title V operating permits (

e.g.,

because they are major sources of HAP or because they are subject to some other section 112 standard).

Under section 502(b)(9) of the CAA, if a Federal standard like the proposed subpart FFFF is promulgated when 3 or more years remain on a major source's title V permit term, the permit will need to be reopened in order to assure compliance with the proposed subpart FFFF. Such a reopening must be completed not later than 18 months after promulgation of the proposed subpart FFFF (40 CFR 70.7(f)(1)(i)).

If fewer than 3 years remain on a title V permit term, a permitting authority's program may reflect the option not to require revisions to the permit to incorporate the NESHAP. Subpart FFFF would be added to the source's title V permit at the next permit renewal, but of course in the meantime, the source must fully comply with the proposed subpart FFFF outside the title V permit. The CAA permits State programs to require revisions to the permit to incorporate the NESHAP when fewer than 3 years remain on a major source's permit term, however, so any sources with fewer than 3 years remaining on their permits upon the promulgation of the proposed subpart FFFF, should consult their State permitting program regulations to determine whether revision to their permits is necessary to incorporate the NESHAP.

The Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category is similar to the Pharmaceuticals Production source category in that both use nondedicated, multipurpose equipment that may be configured in numerous ways to accommodate different batch processes. In addition, both the proposed subpart FFFF and the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG) have process-based emission limitations for batch processes. Therefore, when a permitting authority incorporates the proposed subpart FFFF into a title V permit, the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing sources, like pharmaceuticals production sources, may wish to consider requesting that the permit set forth terms and conditions for reasonably anticipated operating scenarios. The part 70 regulations provide for this opportunity to allow sources to account for operating scenarios that the source owner or operator reasonably anticipates over the course of the permit term, without need for permit revisions (40 CFR 70.6(a)(9)). The permit would require the source, contemporaneously with making a change from one operating scenario to another, to record in an operating log at the facility a record of the current scenario under which the source is operating. By minimizing the need to reopen the permit, the part 70 alternative operating scenarios may be a particularly useful permit strategy.

III. Rationale for Selecting Proposed Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

A. How Did We Select the Source Categories?

As noted in section I.C of this preamble, we are creating two new source categories from the combination of existing source categories. These two source categories are Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing and Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing.

The Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing source category will cover emission sources from 22 previously listed source categories, as well as some emission sources that are not specifically covered by other MACT standards. For example, the HON does not regulate emissions from batch process vents. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing source category will cover these emission sources. In specifying SIC codes, we also include SIC code 283 to include the production of any materials not already covered by the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP.

In the proposed subpart FFFF, we specifically exempt by-product ammonium sulfate manufacturing facilities at caprolactum plants and their respective operations provided that the ammonium sulfate slurry entering the ammonium sulfate manufacturing operation is documented to contain 50 ppmw or less HAP and 10 ppmw or less benzene. We are providing this exemption because these streams are considered treated wastewater, and the ammonium sulfate production is an inorganic chemical manufacturing process.

We also reviewed information submitted by the explosives manufacturing industry that requested us to develop a separate subcategory for explosives manufacturers. The industry group indicated that the proposed control requirements for batch process vents could place severe and unsafe restrictions on explosives and propellant manufacturing sources because existing control technologies, especially those technologies that can achieve 98 percent control, are unsafe. Because the possibility exists that vents from these processes may contain residual explosive materials, the industry contends that thermal destruction technology cannot safely treat these emission streams. The industry has indicated that process condensers are used to recover HAP solvents in production processes and therefore condensation may be a viable control technology for many sources. We recognize that incineration is not a viable control option. Therefore, we have decided to solicit comments on whether process vents generated in the production of explosives, commonly referred to as “energetics,” should be treated as a separate class of emission streams subject to a lesser degree of control corresponding to that achievable using condensers (or other controls). We are also soliciting comments on whether the condenser outlet gas temperature defaults that are being proposed for coatings manufacturing would be appropriate for this industry, and we are soliciting comments on what the definition of “energetics” should be. Note that this discussion does not extend to other emission sources in the explosives industry, such as storage tanks, wastewater, transfer operations, and equipment leaks. These emission points will be regulated in the same manner as for other processes in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing source category.

The Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category is much narrower in applicability than the Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing source category. Process emission sources are vessels used to mix and transfer materials used to make coatings. Coatings include paints, inks, adhesives, and sealants and are generally described under SIC codes 285 and 289, although the NESHAP also apply to the manufacture of any coatings that do not fall under these SIC codes. However, other operations within the SIC Code 285 (SIC 2851 (NAICS 32551)—paints, varnishes, lacquers, enamels, and allied products) and SIC Code 289 (SIC 2891 (NAICS 32552)—adhesives and sealants) that involve chemical reactions are covered by the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category; for example, the manufacture of a latex resin in a chemical reaction prior to its use as a raw material to manufacture a paint would be covered by the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing standards.

B. How Did We Select the Affected Source?

Most industrial plants consist of numerous pieces or groups of equipment that emit HAP and that may be viewed as emission “sources.”

Therefore, we use the term “affected source” to designate equipment within a particular kind of plant chosen as the “source” covered by the proposed NESHAP. For today's proposed Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP, we are defining the affected source as the collection of MCPU and associated equipment, such as heat exchange systems, wastewater conveyance and treatment systems, and transfer operations within a plant site that is a major source. The MCPU definition within the affected source definition also includes specific emission sources that are exempt from other MACT standards, such as batch vents from the HON chemical manufacturing process units.

We are proposing to define the affected source for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category as the miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations, or the collection of equipment necessary to formulate coatings, including inks, paints, sealants, and adhesives at a plant site that is a major source. The affected source includes equipment such as heat exchange systems, wastewater conveyance and treatment systems, and transfer operations.

Within each affected source, we identified the following five types of HAP emission points: process vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, equipment leaks, and wastewater.

C. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources?

According to the CAA, the MACT floor for existing sources is defined as “the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information).” We interpreted the term “average” in 59 FR 29196 as a measure of the “central tendency of a data set.” The central tendency may be represented by the arithmetic mean, median, or some other measure that is reasonable. The MACT floors for the proposed NESHAP are based on the central tendency for each emission source type, using available data. In some cases, we use the arithmetic mean to identify the floor control level and in other cases, we use the median. Generally, we prefer to use the arithmetic mean if sufficient data points exist and if the resulting performance level corresponds to an available control technology. However, if data are insufficient to determine an arithmetic mean or if the result does not yield a performance level that corresponds to an available control technology, we use the median.

1. How Did We Determine the MACT Floors for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category?

The MACT floors for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing source category were developed using data that were collected from facilities during 1997 and from existing available data located in EPA and State databases. Clean Air Act section 114 information collection requests (ICR) were sent to 194 facilities in the spring of 1997. The facilities which received the ICR were identified from EPA's 1993 toxic release inventory (TRI) database which included information on facilities in SIC codes 282, 284, 286, 287, 289, or 386. Information on continuous processes came from emissions and permit databases from the following States: Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Illinois, Missouri, California, and New Jersey. Components of the MACT floor were calculated separately for process vents, storage tanks, wastewater, transfer operations, and equipment leaks consistent with the “plank” methodology developed in the HON (57 FR 62627, December 31, 1992) and are discussed below.

a.

Process Vents.

For process vents, we reviewed information on both batch process vents and continuous process vents. To be consistent with formats in previous MACT standards, we grouped data for batch vents according to all vents within a process. The floor for batch vents was determined for the process, similar to the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. For continuous process vents, we evaluated data on a single vent-by-vent basis, as was done in the HON. We chose the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP as the model for the format of the batch vent standard in the proposed subpart FFFF because it works well for multipurpose equipment, fits well into the definition of operating scenario, and works best for pollution prevention. For continuous vents, we modeled the standard formats on the HON because the continuous vents in this source category are not expected to differ significantly in characteristics from those covered by the HON, and other regulations such as the new source performance standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, subparts NNN, III, RRR, and DDD, which all require control based on characterization using a TRE index on individual process vents.

To evaluate the MACT floor for batch process vents, we started with the database generated from responses to the 1997 ICR. We summed batch vents to calculate the mass of emissions, on an uncontrolled basis, for each process as reported in the ICR responses. We then sorted the processes based on control efficiency and uncontrolled HAP emissions, ranking all processes controlled in order of increasing uncontrolled emissions. The practical limit for control efficiency that would be achievable by devices in this industry is 98 percent. Since greater than 12 percent of processes were controlled to 98 percent, processes with the lowest uncontrolled emissions are best performing. The resulting database contained 731 processes at 144 facilities. The number of processes making up the best 12 percent was 88. We determined that the median performance level represented the central tendency of the top processes since HAP emission values for the top performing facilities represented a skewed distribution over a large range. The median process had 4,480 kg/yr (9,860 lb/yr) of uncontrolled HAP emissions. Based on this process, the MACT floor was set at 98 percent for processes with uncontrolled emissions of 4,540 kg/yr (10,000 lb/yr).

For the new source MACT floor for batch process vents, we identified the batch process representing the best controlled similar source to have uncontrolled HAP emissions of approximately 1,360 kg/yr (3,000 lb/yr). It is controlled with a thermal incinerator. Therefore, we selected the new source MACT floor to be 98 percent control for all processes with uncontrolled HAP emissions greater than or equal to 1,360 kg/yr (3,000 lb/yr).

The MACT floor for continuous process vents was determined in a manner similar to what was done in the development of the HON. We used TRE values for individual process vents as a measure of the level of control. The TRE calculation uses inputs such as stream flow rate and HAP concentration to produce an index value. Streams have high TRE values primarily because of low HAP concentration. As a starting point, we used existing data that had been collected from State agency permit files. This database includes 240 vent streams from 61 processes for which TRE values could be calculated. We calculated TRE values using information on the stream characteristics including flowrate, volatile organic compounds (VOC) content, and HAP content. We then identified all streams that were controlled to 98 percent or better. From the TRE values and the control efficiencies, we identified a threshold TRE value for each facility below which

all streams were controlled. Facilities with the highest TRE threshold values are considered the best performing facilities. There are 44 facilities in the floor analysis, but only 17 with thresholds (the remainder of the facilities did not control their stream with the lowest TRE). Since TRE values for the top performing facilities represent an even distribution over a limited value range, it was determined that the average TRE value best represented the central tendency. The average TRE threshold for the top 12 percent of the facilities is 2.6. Therefore, the MACT floor at existing sources is 98 percent control for all continuous process vents with a TRE less than or equal to 2.6. The TRE threshold for each facility was also used to determine the best performing facility. That facility is controlling all continuous process vents with a TRE of 5.0 or less at a level of 98 percent. Therefore, this is the MACT floor for new sources.

b.

Storage Tanks.

In developing the MACT floor for storage tanks, we again used the CAA section 114 information database. Approximately 16 percent of storage tanks are reported to be equipped with a floating roof or a control device achieving a HAP reduction efficiency of 95 percent or more. As recognized in several NESHAP and NSPS, floating roofs are equivalent to 95 percent control. To determine the appropriate vapor pressure threshold for the MACT floor level of performance, we identified a partial pressure threshold at each facility above which all tanks with a capacity greater than or equal to 38 m

3

(10,000 gal) at the facility were controlled to the MACT floor level. The top 12 percent of the 128 facilities in the tanks database correspond to the top 14 facilities. The average threshold value for the top 12 percent of facilities is a HAP partial pressure of 1 psia (rounded up from 0.88 psia). The average, rather than the median, was chosen because the average value best represented the different HAP stored, and thus represented the central tendency of the data set.

The new source MACT floor for storage tanks was determined to be floating roof technology or 95 percent control since this level of control represents the best level of control in the source category. As with the existing source MACT floor, applicability cutoffs for the new source MACT floor are established based on the smallest tanks storing material with the lowest partial pressures since the emission potential of tanks generally decreases with capacity and vapor pressure of stored material. Therefore, the facility controlling the smallest tanks with the lowest vapor pressure materials in the source category represents the best controlled source. The MACT floor for new sources consists of floating roof technology or 95 percent control of all tanks with a capacity greater than or equal to 38 m

3

that store material with a HAP partial pressure of 0.1 psia, based on the facility that applied controls to all tanks storing materials with a vapor pressure at or above 0.087 psia (rounded to 0.1 psia).

c.

Wastewater.

For wastewater streams, we also set the MACT floor using data collected from the industry. After excluding all but Table 9 HAP, the database contains 363 streams at 60 facilities that have Table 9 HAP concentrations of at least 1,000 ppmw. A total of 184 of these streams at 44 facilities meet the HON cutoffs (i.e., streams of any flowrate that contain at least 10,000 ppmw of Table 9 HAP compounds, and streams with a flowrate of at least 10 lpm that contain at least 1,000 ppmw of Table 9 HAP compounds). Because more than 12 percent of the streams that meet the cutoff are controlled to the level of the HON, we therefore concluded that the MACT floor consists of the HON level of control and the HON cutoffs.

In establishing the new source MACT floor for wastewater, we concluded that the HON new source MACT floor also applies to the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category. It is not possible to identify at least one stream in the database that meets HON new source applicability levels of 0.02 lpm and 10 ppmw Table 8 HAP because we did not ask for data on wastewater streams with less than 1,000 ppmw Table 9 HAP. However, based on our knowledge of the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing industry, we have concluded that the wastewater conveyance and treatment systems used to convey and control HON-affected wastewaters also convey and control affected wastewaters in this source category; therefore, a floor exists based on the colocation of HON and miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing affected sources. The new source floor should be no less stringent than the MACT level of control for new HON sources. This is also the most stringent requirement contained in any other NESHAP, including the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart FF), and we would expect that a similar colocation argument could be made regarding overlap of these requirements for wastewater conveyance and control with affected miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing sources. The colocation rationale for both wastewater new source MACT floor and the MACT floors for existing and new source transfer operations is further discussed in the next section.

d.

Transfer Operations.

Standards for loading operations regulate the transfer of materials containing HAP. Although the products of miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing sources are not expected to contain HAP, generally, it is possible that products will be transferred in solutions of HAP. Therefore, there is a need to establish requirements for loading operations for the source category. In our data gathering effort, we did not collect information on transfer operations. Therefore, we established the floors and regulatory alternatives based on existing available data.

We decided to base the transfer requirements for the proposed NESHAP on the transfer requirements contained in the HON. The rationale for this decision is based on the fact that the Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing source category is closely related to the HON source category in equipment, emission sources, and operations; and we believe a floor exists from colocation of miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing sources at HON facilities. Many facilities with HON applicability also contain processes which will be regulated by the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP. Additionally, there are circumstances where applicability to these proposed standards will overlap with the HON; for example, the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP will cover vents from batch unit operations that are part of HON chemical manufacturing process units (CMPU), therefore products from HON and miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing sources may be loaded at the same rack.

Based on a review of facilities in Texas and Louisiana, we found that approximately 60 percent of facilities containing processes subject to the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP also contain processes subject to the HON. Assuming that these States are representative and that the colocation assumption is valid, then the MACT floor for transfer operations is based on the requirements of the HON, which is 98 percent control for loading racks with a throughput greater than or equal to 0.65 million liters per year (0.17 million gallons per year) at a rack-weighted HAP partial pressure greater than or equal to 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia). In selecting this floor, we also stress that the selection of the same

requirements will streamline the compliance process for those colocated MON processes since only one set of requirements will apply for transfer operations.

e.

Equipment Leaks.

The MACT floor level of performance for equipment leaks is an LDAR program for equipment components. We estimate that the HON LDAR program will reduce HAP emissions by 63 to 75 percent for continuous chemical processes and 70 to 73 percent for batch chemical processes. We determined that several LDAR programs implemented by Texas and Louisiana are roughly equivalent to the HON LDAR program when applied to continuous chemical processes.

Approximately 33 percent of facilities with continuous and batch chemical processes were reported to implement some type of structured LDAR program for equipment components. The top performing 12 percent of facilities were determined by rank ordering all facilities by the LDAR program and overall effectiveness in descending order. The top 12 percent of the 229 facilities in the database correspond to 28 facilities. We found that 30 facilities implement an LDAR program that reduces emissions equivalent to the HON program. Therefore, we set the floor at the HON LDAR program.

Because we wanted to maintain consistency with other Federal rules, we are referencing the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. Implementing subpart UU achieves the same level of control as implementing the HON subpart H program. However, the subpart UU program significantly reduces the burden associated with monitoring valves and connectors without increasing emissions.

2. How Did We Determine the MACT Floors for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category?

a.

Process Vessels.

In developing the MACT floor for this source category, we made a distinction between portable and stationary process tanks. This distinction was made because of the feasibility of controlling each type of vessel and observed industry practices with respect to each type of vessel. Stationary tanks tend to be larger in capacity and are more easily adaptable to add-on control devices. In contrast, portable tanks do not lend themselves to add-on control as easily.

The MACT floor level of performance for portable process vessels is the emission reduction achieved by the use of a fixed or removable cover. Based on industry survey results, approximately 92 percent of portable vessels (2,783 vessels) are equipped with covers, but only 3 percent of portable vessels are reportedly equipped with any type of control device. Therefore, the MACT floor was determined to be covers only. For stationary vessels, we determined the MACT floor to be the emission reduction achieved by the use of a fixed or removable cover that vents to a control device. As with portable tanks, most (approximately 98 percent) of the stationary process vessels are equipped with a cover. Another 8 percent of these vessels were also reported to be controlled with an add-on device. The top 12 percent of 4,628 stationary vessels correspond to 555 tanks. Of these, 368 vessels were reported to be equipped with both a cover and an add-on control device. The average control efficiency of these control devices is 60 percent (rounded up from 57 percent). During the data analysis, we determined that the average performance level did represent the central tendency of the top facilities, as control device efficiencies represented a fairly even distribution. Therefore, we set the MACT floor for stationary vessels to be 60 percent control, as achieved by a cover and closed vent to a control device achieving 60 percent control.

b.

Storage Tanks.

According to the ICR survey data, only 18 of the 453 storage tanks in the database were equipped with control devices. Therefore, because we did not identify any means by which sources are currently reducing emissions that is sufficiently widespread to constitute a MACT floor, we are not establishing a MACT floor for storage tanks at existing sources in the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category.

For new sources, the MACT floor consists of 90 percent control for storage tanks with a capacity ≥94 m

3

(≥25,000 gal) that store a material with a HAP partial pressure ≥0.7 kPa (≥0.1 psia) and 90 percent control for tanks with a capacity <75 m

3

(<20,000 gal) and <94 m

3

(<25,000 gal) that store material with a HAP partial pressure ≥10.3 kPa (≥1.5 psia). Applicability cutoffs are established based on the smallest tanks storing material with the lowest partial pressures. This floor is based on the practices of one facility that has a 94 m

3

(25,000 gal) tank storing 100 percent xylene, which has a partial pressure of 0.76 kPa (0.11 psia), and a 20,000 gal tank storing 100 percent methyl ethyl ketone, which has a partial pressure of 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia) (assuming a temperature of 20°C for both tanks). These tanks are the best performing tanks because they are all controlled to the best level of control in the source category (i.e., 90 percent).

c.

Wastewater.

In selecting MACT for wastewater, we did not follow the same convention as previous analyses for other NESHAP that assumed that the total quantity of generated wastewater, in addition to HAP concentration, would determine treatment options. The use of both flowrate and concentration to identify streams for control is based on the assumption that the cost and effectiveness of controls depend on both the concentration of HAP in the wastewater and the quantity of wastewater generated. This is a reasonable assumption for facilities that treat wastes on site, such as facilities that steam strip wastewater onsite. However, for small quantity generators such as the coating manufacturing facilities, the need for treatment is driven by the characteristics of the wastewater, not the flow rate. If they cannot discharge to a publicly owned treatment works because of their wastewater characteristics, they typically drum their wastewater and send it offsite for treatment. As a result, the unit cost of treatment (i.e., dollars per megagram of HAP reduced) is directly related to the characteristics of the wastewater (e.g., the HAP concentration), not the flow rate.

Because the total quantity of wastewater generated is not significant in determining the unit cost of treatment, we propose to set the MACT floor for this industry segment based only on HAP concentration and not flowrate. Based on the data from the industry, the MACT floor for existing sources would be set based on a concentration of 4,000 ppmw, representing the median concentration of controlled streams from the industry, while the MACT floor for new sources would be set based on a concentration of 2,000 ppmw, which corresponds to the lowest HAP concentration that is controlled. These requirements are based on the practices of nine facilities that reported information regarding wastewater on ten streams. Five of the ten wastewater streams were reported as being controlled, and all were controlled by being drummed and incinerated because they were also RCRA wastes. Thus, the control level was considered to be equivalent to that required by the HON.

d.

Transfer Operations.

In the data gathering effort for this project, no data were requested regarding transfer operations. Therefore, we relied on other available information to set the MACT floors. In the absence of data specific for individual coating manufacturers, we reviewed several State rules to determine the minimum level of control that would apply to

transfer operations at facilities in those States. At a minimum, those rules require 90 percent control of operations where greater than 75 m

3

/day (20,000 gal/day), which equates to 27.6 million 1/yr (7.3 million gal/yr), of VOC having vapor pressures of 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia) or more are transferred. These requirements are typically applied to bulk loading into transport vessels such as tank trucks and railcars. For other containers, such as totes and drums, those rules typically do not apply.

Transfer operations at coating manufacturing facilities result from the loading of transport vessels as well as other containers. However, because we are not aware of any existing rules that apply to the loading of these containers, we are not establishing a MACT floor for existing transfer operations at coating manufacturing facilities.

For new sources we conducted a telephone survey of facilities identified in the database to have high HAP throughputs based on the ICR responses for storage tanks. We were unable to identify any facilities that control emissions from bulk loading operations. Because we did not identify any means by which facilities currently are controlling emissions from such operations, we are not establishing a MACT floor for new sources in the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category.

e.

Equipment Leaks.

We determined that the MACT floor for equipment components is a monthly sensory LDAR program equivalent to the Bulk Gasoline Terminal NESHAP. We based this determination on survey data from the industry that showed that the top performing 12 percent, which consisted of the best 15 of 127 facilities in the database, reported monthly sensory LDAR programs that were considered equivalent to the Bulk Gasoline Terminal NESHAP. Fourteen of the 15 facilities used monthly sensory LDAR programs, while only one facility used a Method 21 monitoring-based LDAR program. We did not consider the one facility representative of the industry. Therefore, we also determined the new source MACT floor to be a monthly sensory program.

3. How Did We Consider Beyond-the-Floor Technology for the Source Categories?

The CAA states that MACT must be the maximum degree of reduction in emissions that is achievable for sources in the source category and shall be no less stringent than the MACT floor. Therefore, we also evaluate options more stringent than the MACT floor in determining what is achievable. These options are discussed below.

a.

Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category.

For existing sources, we identified options beyond the MACT floor for process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater emission points. We did not develop more stringent options than the floor for equipment leaks or transfer operations. For equipment leaks, the HON LDAR program is the most stringent program available, and, therefore, there were no above-the-floor options to consider. For transfer operations, we did not consider a beyond-the-floor option because we did not have industry-specific data indicating the existence of any above-the-floor option and because of the high level of control (98 percent) required to meet the MACT floor. We do not believe there are any beyond-the-floor options for which the cost would be reasonable. For process vents, storage tanks, and wastewater, the required performance levels (e.g., 98 percent control for process vents) are the same as for the MACT floor. However, the applicability criteria for the beyond-the-floor options are more stringent, requiring the installation of controls on a larger group of affected sources.

For batch process vents, the beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative is the control of all batch vents within a process with uncontrolled emissions of 2,270 kg/yr (5,000 lb/yr) (the MACT floor requires control of all batch vents within each process with uncontrolled emissions of 4,540 kg/yr (10,000 lb/yr)). The 2,270 kg/yr value was selected for the alternative because it represents the midpoint between the MACT floor value and no cutoff. A cutoff is necessary because the required performance level is high (98 percent) and some allowance for less cost effective or difficult to control vents should be available.

For continuous process vents, our regulatory alternative applicability level is a TRE of 5.0 (the MACT floor TRE is 2.6). This level also coincides with the new source MACT floor and is an indication that the level is technically feasible to achieve since at least one facility in the industry is currently controlling a stream(s) with this TRE.

For storage tanks, the beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative vapor pressure applicability is greater than or equal to 3.4 kPa (0.5 psia), as opposed to the MACT floor vapor pressure applicability of greater than or equal to 6.9 kPa (1.0 psia). The capacity applicability remains at 38 m

3

(10,000 gal), the size of a small storage tank. An applicability cutoff in terms of vapor pressure is reasonable so that nonvolatile materials are not required to be controlled. Therefore, we selected a vapor pressure cutoff halfway between the MACT floor applicability cutoff and zero.

For wastewater, we developed a beyond-the-floor option that changed one of the two sets of applicability criteria relative to the MACT floor. This option has flowrate and concentration applicability cutoffs of 1 lpm and 500 ppmw (the MACT floor is 10 lpm and 1,000 ppmw). We developed an option based on these applicability criteria to be consistent with the applicability cutoffs provided in the Wastewater NSPS (40 CFR part 63, subpart YYY). The beyond-the-floor option also includes the same applicability cutoffs of 10,000 ppmw at any flow rate as for the MACT floor.

For new sources, we did not develop beyond-the-floor options for process vents, transfer operations, and storage tanks because the new source floors are already more stringent than either the floor or a beyond-the-floor option for existing sources for which costs were reasonable. For equipment leaks, we did not develop a beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative because the subpart H program is already the most stringent program. For wastewater, we developed a beyond-the-floor option that combines the same performance level as the floor with the most stringent applicability cutoffs of both the new source floor and the beyond-the-floor option for existing sources. Thus, the applicability cutoffs for this option consist of 10,000 ppmw of Table 9 HAP at any flow rate, 500 ppmw of Table 9 HAP at flow rates greater than 1 lpm, and 10 ppmw of Table 8 HAP at flow rates greater than 0.02 lpm.

b.

Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category.

We developed beyond-the-floor options, or regulatory alternatives, for all five types of emission points at existing sources and for equipment leaks and transfer operations at new sources. These options are described below. We did not develop beyond-the-floor options for process vessels, storage tanks, and wastewater emission points at new sources because the new source floors are already more stringent than either the floor or a beyond-the-floor option for existing sources for which costs were reasonable.

For stationary process vessels, we evaluated regulatory alternatives beyond-the-floor based on a higher level of control, 75 percent reduction, rather than the 60 percent reduction established in the MACT floor. For portable process vessels, we evaluated the same alternative as for stationary vessels. We evaluated the 75 percent

control level based on our knowledge of the predominant HAP in the industry and the emission stream characteristics from process vessels. We believe that the 75 percent reduction is achievable with the use of condensers, and this alternative represents a cost effective and environmentally sound strategy that results in lower secondary impacts than other strategies such as incineration.

For storage tanks, we evaluated two regulatory alternatives, both with a performance level of 90 percent (or the use of an internal floating roof or external floating roof), which is consistent with the highest performance level at an existing source. We selected a partial pressure cutoff of 1.9 psia and a tank capacity of 75 m

3

(20,000 gal) for one option because these are common cutoffs used in many other NESHAP. We also developed a second regulatory alternative with a lower capacity cutoff of 38 m

3

(10,000 gal) and the same partial pressure cutoff of 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia).

For wastewater existing sources, the beyond-the-floor option includes the same suppression and treatment requirements as the MACT floor, but the applicability cutoff was reduced from 4,000 ppmw to 2,000 ppmw. This lower concentration corresponds with the lowest concentration in a controlled wastewater stream at an existing facility in the source category, and it is one of the lowest concentrations in any wastewater stream in the source category.

For transfer operations, we developed a beyond-the-floor option for both existing and new sources that requires at least 75 percent control of HAP emissions from bulk loading of products with a HAP vapor pressure greater than or equal to 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia) and a throughput greater than or equal to 11.4 million 1/yr (3.0 million gal/yr). Emissions from bulk loading exhibit the same characteristics as emissions from the transfer of materials in process vessels (i.e., they result from displacement of gases during filling and are assumed to be saturated emission streams that can be effectively controlled using condensers). The 75 percent control requirement is achievable using condensers on these streams. Therefore, we developed this regulatory alternative to be consistent with the regulatory alternative for stationary process vessels so that the facility could use the same control for both types of emission points.

For equipment leaks, the beyond-the-floor option for both new and existing sources is the HON LDAR program. This program is the most stringent program in practice.

4. How Did We Select the Standards?

We selected the proposed standards for both source categories based on our evaluation of the floors and regulatory alternatives discussed above. When evaluating the more stringent options, we consider the costs, nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements that accompany the expected emissions reductions. This rationale is discussed below.

a.

Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Source Category.

The proposed standards for equipment leaks and transfer operations at both new and existing sources, and the standards for process vents and storage tanks at new sources, are based on the MACT floor because no beyond-the-floor option was developed. When a beyond-the-floor option was developed (i.e., for process vents and storage tanks at existing sources and wastewater at both new and existing sources), we evaluated the incremental impacts of going beyond the MACT floor.

For continuous process vents at existing sources, we concluded that the total impacts of the above-the-floor option would be unreasonable in light of the HAP emission reductions achieved. Specifically, the incremental HAP reduction achieved by the above-the-floor option is 50 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost is $61,000/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental electricity consumption to operate exhaust gas fans is 3.5 million kwh/yr (an average increase of 58,000 kwh/yr for an estimated 60 facilities with additional vents subject to control under the above-the-floor option). The incremental steam consumption for steam-assist flares is 45 million lb/yr (about 750,000 lb/yr/facility). The incremental fuel energy for natural gas (to operate incinerators and flares and to generate steam) and coal to generate the electricity is about 500 billion Btu/yr (about 8.3 billion Btu/yr/facility). Total carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO

X

), and sulfur dioxide (SO

2

) emissions from the combustion of these fuels would increase by about 66 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater or solid waste impacts. We concluded that the total impacts of the above-the-floor option would be unreasonable compared to the HAP emissions reductions achieved. Therefore, the proposed standard for continuous process vents at existing sources is based on the MACT floor.

For batch process vents at existing sources, we also concluded that the total impacts of the above-the-floor option would be unreasonable in light of the HAP emissions reductions achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved by the above-the-floor option is 145 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost is $15,000/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental electricity consumption to operate exhaust gas fans is 5.1 million kwh/yr (an average increase of 135,000 kwh/yr for an estimated 38 facilities with additional vents subject to control under the above-the-floor option). The incremental steam consumption for steam-assist flares is 6.0 million lb/yr (about 160,000 lb/yr/facility). The incremental fuel energy for natural gas (to operate incinerators and flares and to generate steam) and coal to generate the electricity is about 340 billion Btu/yr (about 9.0 billion Btu/yr/facility). Total CO, NO

X

, and SO

2

emissions from the combustion of these fuels would increase by about 66 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater or solid waste impacts. We concluded that the total impacts of the above-the-floor option would be unreasonable compared to the HAP emissions reductions achieved. Therefore, the proposed standard for batch process vents at existing sources is based on the MACT floor.

We reached a similar conclusion for storage tanks at existing sources. For such storage tanks, the incremental HAP reduction achieved by the above-the-floor option is 30 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost is $19,000/Mg of HAP controlled. The incremental electricity and fuel consumption rates for storage tanks controlled with condensers at existing sources are 15,000 kwh/yr and 145 million Btu/yr, respectively (about 1,500 kwh/yr/tank and 14.5 million Btu/yr/tank, respectively); there would be no environmental impacts or energy requirements for other storage tanks controlled with floating roofs. The total CO, NO

X

, and SO

2

emissions from fuel combustion would increase by only about 0.1 Mg/yr. We concluded that the total impacts of the above-the-floor option would be unreasonable in light of the HAP emissions reductions achieved. Therefore, the proposed standard for storage tanks at existing sources is based on the MACT floor.

Finally, we concluded that the total impacts of the above-the-floor for wastewater at existing sources would be unreasonable compared to the HAP emissions reductions achieved. For wastewater, the incremental HAP reduction for the above-the-floor option is 400 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost is about $15,000/Mg of HAP controlled. Additional wastewater streams at 24 existing facilities would be subject to the treatment requirements under the above-the-floor option. The incremental electricity and steam consumption rates to comply with these requirements, per facility, are about 47,000 kwh/yr and 8.3

million lb/yr, respectively. Incremental fuel consumption to generate the electricity and steam is about 13 billion Btu/yr/facility. Total CO, NO

X

, and SO

2

emissions from the fuel combustion would increase by 33 Mg/yr. We concluded that the total impacts for the above-the-floor option for existing sources would be unreasonable. Therefore, the proposed standard for wastewater at existing sources is based on the MACT floor.

For wastewater at new sources, the differences between the above-the-floor option and the MACT floor are the same as for existing sources. Therefore, we also concluded that the incremental impacts of the above-the-floor option for new sources would be unreasonable, and the proposed standard for wastewater at new sources is based on the MACT floor.

The proposed standards apply to cleaning as well as actual production steps because we understand that vessel cleaning is integral to the process. This is consistent with operations in other industries with batch processes such as pharmaceuticals production. We are soliciting comments on cleaning procedures, emissions from cleaning, and any additional costs of controlling emissions from cleaning as part of the process.

b.

Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category.

For the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category, we decided to propose the regulatory alternatives identified as above-the-floor for stationary process vessels at existing sources, storage tanks at existing sources, and transfer operations and equipment leaks at both new and existing sources. In these cases, we found that the incremental cost and non-air quality environmental impacts and energy requirements of going above the MACT floors are acceptable. By contrast, for stationary process vessels, portable process vessels, storage tanks, and wastewater at new sources, we are proposing standards based on the MACT floor because we determined that either the MACT floor itself is based on a very high level of control or the MACT floor requirements are more stringent than existing source regulatory alternatives for which incremental costs and other impacts were not acceptable. Similarly, for wastewater at existing sources, we are proposing standards based on the MACT floor because we determined that the incremental costs and other impacts to go above the MACT floor were not acceptable.

For stationary process vessels at existing sources, we concluded that the total impacts of the above-the-floor option were reasonable. For such stationary process vessels, we found that going from the cover plus a 60 percent control device to the cover plus a 75 percent control device reduces HAP emissions by nearly 1,700 Mg/yr and reduces annual costs by $80/Mg of HAP controlled. Assuming the control levels for both the MACT floor and the above-the-floor option are achieved using condensers, incremental electricity consumption is about 2.7 million kwh/yr (an average increase of approximately 31,000 kwh/yr per facility). To generate this electricity, fuel consumption (coal) is estimated to increase by 26.6 billion Btu/yr, and total CO, NO

X

, and SO

2

emissions are estimated to increase by less than 23 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater or solid waste impacts. Thus, we selected the regulatory alternative as the proposed standard for stationary vessels at existing sources. The proposed standard for stationary vessels at new sources is based on the MACT floor, which consists of a cover and an add-on control device that reduces HAP emissions by at least 95 percent because, as described above, we did not develop a more stringent option.

For portable process vessels at existing sources we concluded that the total impacts of the above-the floor option were unreasonable in light of the HAP emissions reductions achieved. Specifically, going from the MACT floor (a cover) to a cover plus a control device achieving 75 percent reduction reduces HAP emissions by about 400 Mg/yr. Assuming the control device is a condenser, the incremental cost is approximately $21,000/Mg of HAP controlled. In addition, electricity consumption to operate refrigeration units would increase from zero at the MACT floor to more than 900,000 kwh/yr (an average increase of about 11,000 kwh/yr/facility for an estimated 85 facilities with portable process vessels subject to additional control under the above-the-floor option). Fuel consumption (coal) to generate the electricity would increase by more than 9.0 billion Btu/yr; collectively, CO, NO

X

, and SO

2

emissions would increase by 8 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater or solid waste impacts. We concluded that the total impacts for this option were unreasonable. Therefore, we selected the MACT floor as the proposed standard for portable process vessels at existing sources. The proposed standard for portable vessels at new sources also is based on the MACT floor, which consists of a cover and an add-on control device capable of reducing HAP emissions by at least 95 percent because, as described above, we did not develop a more stringent option.

For storage tanks at existing sources, we found the impacts of the first above-the-floor option, which requires control of tanks greater than or equal to 75 m

3

(20,000 gal) storing material with a vapor pressure greater than or equal to 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia), to be reasonable compared to the HAP emissions reductions achieved. This option reduces emissions by 2.5 Mg/yr at an incremental cost of $2,700 to $4,900 per Mg of HAP controlled, depending on the characteristics of the tanks. In addition, because the above-the-floor option can be achieved using floating roofs, there are no non-air quality environmental impacts or energy requirements. However, we found the second option, which would have required control of all tanks having a capacity of at least 38 m

3

at the same vapor pressure applicability cutoff, has incremental costs of more than $17,000/Mg of HAP controlled. There would also be increased non-HAP environmental impacts and energy requirements to operate condensers to control emissions from the tanks with capacities between 38 m

3

and 75 m

3

; we did not quantify these impacts. Therefore, we selected the option that requires control of tanks with capacities greater than or equal to 75 m

3

storing material with a vapor pressure greater than or equal to 1.9 psia as the proposed standard for storage tanks at existing sources. By contrast, the proposed standard for storage tanks at new sources is based on the MACT floor because, as described above, we did not develop a more stringent option.

For wastewater at existing sources, we concluded that the impacts of the above-the-floor regulatory option were unreasonable compared to the HAP emissions reductions achieved. For wastewater at existing sources, the above-the-floor regulatory option is the control of all streams with a total HAP concentration greater than 2,000 ppmw (the MACT floor was 4,000 ppmw). For the impacts analysis, we assumed that the required treatment would be achieved using a steam stripper or by sending the wastewater offsite for treatment, depending on the quantity generated. We estimated that the above-the-floor option would require treatment by one additional facility and reduce HAP emissions by less than 0.5 Mg/yr at an incremental cost of more than $200,000/Mg of HAP controlled. In addition, electricity consumption would increase by about 700 kwh/yr; steam consumption would increase by 120,000 lb/yr; energy to generate the electricity and steam would increase by 180 million Btu/yr; and total CO, NO

X

, and

SO

2

emissions would increase by 0.02 Mg/yr of HAP controlled. There may also be solid waste impacts if condensed steam and pollutants from the steam stripper cannot be reused. We concluded that the total impacts for the above-the-floor option were unreasonable. Therefore, we are proposing that the standard for wastewater at existing sources be based on the MACT floor. The proposed standard for wastewater at new sources is also based on the MACT floor (i.e, the HON suppression and treatment requirements for all streams with a total HAP concentration greater than 2,000 ppmw) because, as described above, we did not develop a more stringent option.

For transfer operations, we found that the total impacts of the above-the floor option were reasonable in light of the HAP emissions reductions achieved. Specifically, the above-the-floor option would reduce HAP emissions by about 37 Mg/yr at an incremental cost of less than $3,000/Mg of HAP controlled. In addition, under the above-the-floor option, operation of a refrigeration unit at one existing facility would increase electricity consumption by about 2,150 kwh/yr; increase energy consumption by 21 million Btu/yr; and increase total CO, NO

X

, and SO

2

emissions by less than 0.02 Mg/yr. There would be no non-air environmental impacts. We concluded that the total impacts for the above-the-floor option were reasonable. Therefore, for both new and existing sources, we are proposing that the emission limitation be based on the above-the-floor option which would require at least 75 percent control of HAP emissions from bulk loading of products with a HAP throughput greater than or equal to 11.4 million 1/yr (3.0 million gal/yr) and a weighted HAP partial pressure greater than or equal to 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia).

For equipment leaks, our model analysis indicates that implementing an above-the-floor option consisting of a HON-equivalent LDAR program instead of the sensory program determined to be the floor would reduce HAP emissions by 360 Mg/yr at an incremental cost of $2,700/Mg of HAP controlled. In addition, there are no environmental impacts or energy requirements associated with implementing the above-the-floor option. We concluded that the total impacts for the above-the-floor option were reasonable. Therefore, we are proposing that the standard for equipment leaks for both existing and new sources be based on the HON LDAR program or the equivalent program in the Generic MACT (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU).

The proposed standards for cleaning operations are the same as for any other process operation because controls implemented while cleaning are the same as for normal process operation. This is consistent with batch operations in other industries such as for pharmaceuticals production. For example, the MACT floor for stationary process vessels is based on controls. Cleaning operations are part of the floor because we understand that if emissions are controlled while mixing raw materials, then emissions are also controlled during cleaning. Therefore, we concluded that cleaning operations should also be included in the regulatory alternative for process vessels. Similarly, we based the MACT floor for wastewater treatment on discharges of cleaning fluids. In fact, all of our wastewater data from coatings manufacturing is from cleaning operations. We are soliciting comments on cleaning procedures, emissions from cleaning, and any additional costs of controlling emissions from cleaning as part of the process.

D. How Did We Select the Format of the Standards?

The MACT standards proposed today are presented in numerous formats. The discussion below describes the information we considered in selecting these formats. The requirements for storage tanks, transfer operations, wastewater, and equipment leaks follow formats similar to formats used in other regulations, enabling some streamlining of requirements in cases where facilities must comply with multiple regulations.

For storage tanks, the proposed standards follow the same format as in other Federal regulations. The format of the standards for storage tanks is a combination of work practice standard and emission limitation—tanks which require control must either be fitted with floating roofs or vented to add-on control devices meeting a percent removal requirement. These formats allow the owner operator maximum flexibility to comply by using an add-on control device while maintaining a simple option to comply using a work practice standard.

Work practice standards, where compliance is based on operating or equipment practice rather than specific emission limitations, have been recognized as effective ways to limit HAP emissions without the burden of characterization of actual HAP emissions and comparison against numerical limits. Section 112(h) of the CAA recognizes the need for alternative forms of standards, such as work practice standards. Therefore, work practice standards such as the use of floating roofs on tanks or LDAR programs for the control of equipment leaks are proposed in these NESHAP.

Standards for transfer operations follow the same format as the standards contained in the HON. The standards allow for vapor return of displaced materials back to the process or storage container, or require a percent reduction from uncontrolled levels achieved with the use of an add-on control device. Note that both proposed standards apply only to bulk loading into trucks or railcars. Loading into smaller vessels (e.g., drums) that do not have a dedicated vent or stack would create a capture efficiency issue, and an effective control system would likely be based on induced draft capture, which would result in a dilute emission stream. The control device for this type of system would be incineration, and it would not be cost effective. Note that the percent reduction requirement for transfer operations in the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing source category is the same as that for stationary process vessels (i.e., lower than the requirement in the HON).

Standards for wastewater also follow the formats proposed in other NESHAP such as the HON. For the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category, the applicability criteria consists only of concentration because the quantity generated is of lesser importance. For the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category, we are proposing exactly the same language, including applicability, as was done in the HON.

The proposed LDAR standards reference subpart UU. That LDAR program allows less frequent monitoring and repair compared to the HON, but is as effective as the HON because it targets those components that are most likely to leak.

Because of the broad applicability of the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category, the requirements contained in these proposed standards for applicable process vent emissions sources are formatted so they can be applied to numerous types of emission sources. Requirements for process vents are structured in the format of percent reduction coupled with TRE and mass applicability limits. Requirements for batch emissions sources are based on a percent reduction from a defined uncontrolled baseline over the group of batch vents that are contained in a process, as was done in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. For continuous process vents, the requirements for control are based on

the TRE format applied in the HON. Both formats allow for a variety of control devices and are easily implemented over a variety of process vent sources.

The pollution-prevention standard is based on the premise that a reduction in consumption of HAP can be associated with a reduction in losses to air, water, or solid waste. The required 65 percent reduction in the production-indexed HAP consumption factor is equivalent to the overall reductions in emissions achieved by the emission limitations and work practice standards for process vents, storage tanks, wastewater, and equipment leaks. Consumption, rather than emissions, is tracked because it can be used as a true measure of pollution prevention; any decrease in consumption for the same unit of product produced must involve some type of increase in process efficiency, including reduction of waste, increased product yield, and in-process recycling. The pollution prevention alternative standard only applies to chemical manufacturing batch processes because the batch process vent standards apply to all vents from the process. The continuous process vent standard applies to single vents and is not a process based standard. Since the TRE for continuous vents is applied after the last recovery device, pollution prevention has already been considered in the applicability of the control requirements for continuous vents.

For the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category, process emission sources are vessels used to mix and transfer materials used to make coatings. For process vessels, the standards are a combination of work practice standard and percent reduction. The requirement to maintain a sealed and gasketed cover is a work practice standard. Without such an equipment standard, it would be difficult to demonstrate capture of displaced vapors into the control device.

Generally, both mixing operations and transfer operations are conducted at ambient temperatures. The HAP used in coating manufacturing operations include toluene and xylene. Based on this narrow set of operating conditions, process vent and transfer operation emissions from this source category are expected to generally result from displacements; emission streams from these displacement events are expected to be saturated at ambient conditions. The choice of control devices is narrower than in the previous source category. In general, we expect that the use of condensers will satisfy the control requirements.

We are, therefore, proposing the use of an additional format for demonstrating compliance with the stationary process vessel standards and the transfer operations standards that is based on achieving preset condenser outlet temperatures that correspond to ranges of material vapor pressures. This option is intended to simplify the compliance demonstration because it eliminates the demonstration of 75 percent reduction using uncontrolled and controlled emission estimates. The preset ranges are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.—Required Condenser Exit Gas Temperatures

HAP partial pressure ranges at 25°C, kPa (Psia)

Required outlet gas temperatures, °C

<0.7 kPa (0.1 psia)

10

≥0.7 kPa (0.1 psia) to <17.2 kPa (2.5 psia)

2

≥17.2 kPa (2.5 psia)

−5

These values were set by calculating, on average, necessary temperatures to condense 75 percent of the HAP in streams predominantly composed of materials representing vapor pressure ranges of xylene, toluene, and methanol, common materials in this industry. For wastewater streams, applicability is based only on the wastewater constituent concentrations and follows waste disposal practices for compliance with RCRA since the scale of operations generally precludes the installation and operation of wastewater treatment systems.

We considered other format options for MACT standards, including using mass emission rates and outlet concentrations. For the Miscellaneous Organic Chemicals Manufacturing source category, we concluded that a percent reduction format allows the most flexibility in terms of defining the floors and in terms of compliance with the standard. A mass rate standard could not easily be established that would apply to the multitude of operations covered by the standards because of the variability in products, materials, and processing conditions. For example, we would not want to set a MACT floor based solely on an emission limit that would be easily met by some sources because of the nature of their operation, but could not be achieved by all sources in the category. However, we note that the 4,540 kg/yr (10,000 lb/yr) applicability limit for batch process vents is a type of mass emission limit. When coupled with the percent reduction, the mass limit allows owners and operators some flexibility in determining what portions of processes to control. Yet, the complementing portion of the standard also offers a percent reduction to enable all facilities in the source category to comply. No mass limit is proposed for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing source category because we could not establish an acceptable emissions limit below which no control would be required, based on the MACT floor.

We are also proposing a concentration standard as an alternative to a percent reduction standard for process vents and storage tanks. This alternative standard was also provided in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP as a means of complying with that NESHAP by manifolding multiple vents or sources to a common device. Sources can comply by continuously monitoring the outlet concentration of the control device using a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) and ensuring that the TOC concentration does not exceed 20 ppmv for combustion devices or 50 ppmv TOC for noncombustion devices. If halogenated compounds are present, you must also monitor for hydrogen halides and halogens and maintain these concentrations to below 20 ppmv.

E. How Did We Select the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

Testing and initial compliance demonstration provisions contained in the NESHAP are based on the requirements contained in the HON for continuous process vents, transfer sources, and wastewater sources, the Generic MACT for storage tanks, and the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP for batch process vents and coatings process vessels. We believe that it is reasonable to use the HON and Generic MACT compliance demonstration provisions requirements for the above sources because the formats are consistent with the HON and Generic MACT requirements, and because we expect many affected sources are already familiar with the provisions, especially those sources that have colocated miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process units and HON units. The Generic MACT compliance provisions for certain sources (fired sources such as boilers and process heaters) also closely follow requirements contained in the NSPS, and, therefore, owners and operators of miscellaneous coatings facilities may also have some familiarity for these types of sources. In the interest of streamlining requirements for title V permits, using these existing provisions may also provide opportunities for

condensing identical or similar requirements.

The testing and initial compliance demonstration provisions of the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP are referenced for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing batch process vents and for miscellaneous coatings stationary process vessels because that NESHAP considers the issues associated with the characterization and control of batch emission sources. There are two important concepts contained in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP that will also apply to the batch sources in these source categories, and they are: (1) The use of emission estimation equations to determine uncontrolled and controlled emissions, and (2) the consideration of aggregated batch emission sources in the development of an initial compliance demonstration under worst case conditions. There are more reliable, less costly methods to characterize emissions from batch processes using accepted methodologies to estimate emissions from batch emission sources rather than using testing strategies that are limited in data. This is because the characteristics that drive emissions, flow and concentration, often vary independently of each other in batch emission events. The use of a single data point for flow and one for concentration may not be representative of emissions over the event. Conversely, the use of accepted emission estimation methodologies provides a consistent set of guidelines for calculating emissions and is especially important in these proposed NESHAP, since compliance rests on demonstrating a percent reduction from an uncontrolled value. The uncontrolled value must be calculated consistently in order for the NESHAP to be fairly and consistently applied across the industry.

As a related issue, we have also required the same process condenser control efficiency demonstration requirement as in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP for some batch process vents in miscellaneous organic chemicals manufacturing sources. As in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP, we proposed to exclude from the demonstration requirement any process condensers followed by secondary condensers that would be considered air pollution control devices and air pollution control devices complying with the alternative standard. This compliance procedure for process condensers is being proposed to ensure that owners and operators will accurately characterize uncontrolled emissions.

The emission estimation methodologies provided in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP and referenced in these proposed NESHAP were also used in the Polymers and Resins NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subparts U and JJJ). They are based on accepted vapor-liquid equilibrium principles and were reviewed extensively during the development of the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP.

The worst-case testing provisions are structured to account for the most challenging conditions to which a control device will be exposed. The initial compliance demonstration is also tied to the continuous compliance demonstration in that an operating parameter is used as an indicator of the control device's performance over time, and the operating parameter is first “calibrated” against the control efficiency achieved by the device during the initial compliance demonstration. Therefore, the initial compliance demonstration must be conducted at the most challenging conditions in order to ensure continuous compliance under all other conditions. However, the proposed NESHAP are structured such that monitoring is required only for those events that are controlled for the purposes of complying with the proposed NESHAP.

We also have provided some language in the proposed NESHAP that clarifies appropriate methods for demonstrating compliance with percent reduction requirements and emission concentration limits on combustion devices. The proposed NESHAP allow owners and operators to use either Method 25, 25A (under certain specific conditions), or 18 to demonstrate compliance with the HAP percent emission reduction requirement. However, if Method 18 is used, we clarify that only HAP that are present in the inlet to the device can be used to characterize the percent reduction across the device. Additionally, you must first determine which HAP are present in the inlet gas stream (

i.e.,

uncontrolled emissions) using process knowledge or a screening procedure. When using Method 25 or 25A, you must measure the inlet and outlet mass emissions as carbon.

We provided this clarification because when organic compounds are controlled by combustion processes, the organic pollutants emitted at the outlet of the device are not the same as those entering the inlet to the device and are typically unknown. Method 18, which measures specific, known compounds, will not yield accurate results unless it can be used to determine the percent reduction of known compounds across the device. Conversely, Method 25 measures total non-methane organic compounds and can be used to determine percent reduction across the combustion device regardless of how the combustion process affects the inlet and outlet streams. Under certain conditions (

i.e.,

controlled emissions concentrations less than 50 ppmv), Method 25A may be used in lieu of Method 25 for determining the reduction across a combustion device.

In demonstrating compliance with the outlet concentration standard, you may use Method 18 or Method 25A. If Method 18 is used, the resulting concentration must be reported as the compound or compounds measured; however, if Method 25A is used, the concentration must be reported as carbon.

Initial compliance with the pollution-prevention alternative would be accomplished by documenting yearly quantities of HAP raw materials and products using available records, including standard purchasing and accounting records, and periodically calculating annual rolling totals of the production-indexed HAP consumption factor for comparison with the baseline value. The factor must be calculated every 30 days for continuous processes, and every 10 batches (up to once per month) for batch processes.

F. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

Monitoring is required by the proposed NESHAP to determine whether a source is in compliance on an ongoing basis. We selected the continuous compliance requirements based on a combination of general monitoring requirements in the General Provisions (subpart A) and specific monitoring requirements for the HON and Pharmaceuticals Production source categories.

1. General Monitoring Requirements

As specified in § 63.8(c) of the General Provisions, sources must record the data from their monitoring systems at least once every 15 minutes. However, for control devices that are determined to control less than 0.91 Mg/yr (1 ton/yr) of HAP, the proposed subparts require only a daily verification that the devices are operating as required, consistent with the referenced Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. We are also referencing limits for the minimum amount of data that can be recorded to demonstrate compliance with the proposed NESHAP, based on requirements in the HON and the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP.

Sources would be required to calculate either daily or block averages of their operating parameter values for the purpose of ensuring continuous compliance. We selected the daily or block averaging times referenced in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP again following consistency with the initial compliance demonstration.

2. Continuous Monitoring

When determining appropriate monitoring options, we consider the availability and feasibility of the following strategies in a “top-down” approach: (1) CEMS for the actual HAP emitted, (2) CEMS for HAP surrogates, (3) monitoring operating parameters, and (4) work practice standards. In evaluating the use of CEMS in these proposed NESHAP, monitoring of individual HAP species may not be reasonable or technically feasible for many streams. For those cases where it is feasible, CEMS meeting Performance Specification 9 or 15 may be used to measure and report emissions as individual HAP compounds. However, in the case of continuous monitoring of surrogates, continuous TOC monitoring is considered a viable and efficient monitoring option and is provided in these proposed NESHAP. The alternative standard makes use of CEMS that meet Performance Specification 8 that have been calibrated using the predominant HAP in the stream. The results must be reported as carbon when compared to the 20 ppmv emission limit for combustion devices or 50 ppmv emission limit for noncombustion devices. To monitor hydrochloric acid emissions, you must either use a CEMS that meets Performance Specification 15, or if you wish to use a CEMS for which we have not promulgated a Performance Specification, you must prepare a monitoring plan and submit it for approval in accordance with the procedures specified in § 63.8 of the General Provisions. The requirement to submit a monitoring plan for approval is an interim solution that is necessary until we promulgate applicable Performance Specifications.

Monitoring of control device operating parameters is considered appropriate for many other emission sources, and therefore, most of the other monitoring options provided in the proposed NESHAP are based on parametric monitoring.

Based on information from the source categories, we selected operating parameters for the following types of control devices that are reliable indicators of control device performance: thermal and catalytic incinerators, flares, carbon adsorbers, scrubbers, and condensers. In general, we selected parameters and monitoring provisions that are contained in the HON and in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. The range of parameter limits in both NESHAP should cover both batch and continuous production processes. Sources would monitor these operating parameters to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations.

We are also proposing monitoring parameters for catalytic incinerators that are different from parameters that have been required to be monitored in existing NESHAP. Instead of requiring monitoring of the temperature differential across the catalyst bed, we are proposing that the inlet temperature into the incinerator be monitored, since we believe that this parameter would be a better indicator of overall incinerator performance for the type of emission stream characteristics we expect to find in these source categories. For low flow or dilute concentrations, we believe that it may not always be possible to achieve the recommended temperature differential. We are also proposing to require an annual catalyst test to verify that the catalyst activity is still acceptable.

3. Other Monitoring

You may choose an alternative to the monitoring required by the proposed NESHAP. If you do, you must request approval for alternative monitoring according to the procedures in subpart A, § 63.8, or you must request the approach in your precompliance report.

The proposed NESHAP also contain monitoring for work practice standards involving periodic inspections for equipment integrity. These monitoring requirements include storage tank seal inspections, wastewater component surface inspections, and bypass and closure device inspections and are also required by the HON and the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP.

G. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements?

We selected the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements based on generic requirements in the General Provisions and specific requirements for the HON and Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP.

1. Notification Requirements

The notification requirements in the proposed NESHAP include initial notifications, notification of performance test, notification of compliance status, and notification dates. These notification requirements are based on requirements in §§ 63.6(h), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(e) and (f), 63.9(b), (f), and (h), and 63.10(d)(2) of the General Provisions.

2. Reporting Requirements

The reporting requirements that we selected include semiannual compliance reports, required in § 63.10(e)(3), and immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports, required in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii). If there are no deviations from the standards during the reporting period, then your semiannual compliance report must include a statement to that effect. If there were deviations from the standards during the reporting period, then your semiannual compliance report must include the information listed in Table 15 of the proposed subpart FFFF or HHHHH. For each deviation where a CEMS is used to comply with the standards, your compliance report must also include the information in §§ 63.8(c)(8), 63.10(c)(5) through (13), and 63.10(e)(3)(vi). If there was a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period, and you took actions consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, then your compliance report must include the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). The submittal date for the compliance report is based on information in § 63.10(e)(3)(v).

If there was a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period, and you took actions inconsistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, then you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. The report must include the actions taken for the event and the information provided in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii). The submittal date for the immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report is based on § 63.10(d)(5)(ii).

3. Recordkeeping Requirements

The proposed NESHAP require you to maintain a copy of each notification and report, as well as documentation supporting any initial notification or notification of compliance status, according to the requirements in § 63.10(b)(1)(xiv). You must also keep the records in § 63.6(e)(3) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction; records of performance tests and performance evaluations, as required in § 63.7(g)(1); and records for each CEMS and parameter monitoring system.

The records for the CEMS would include the records described in § 63.10(b)(vi) through (xi); superseded

versions of the performance evaluation plan, as required in § 63.7(d)(3); and the request for alternatives to a relative accuracy test for CEMS, as required in § 63.8(f)(6)(i). The records for the parameter monitoring system would include records of operating limits and parameter monitoring data. You must keep records of all material balances and calculations documenting the percent reduction in HAP emissions used to demonstrate compliance with the standards.

H. What Is the Relationship of These Proposed NESHAP to Other Rules?

This section discusses the relationship between today's proposed NESHAP and other Federal rules covering facilities containing sources in these source categories. This section also discusses the relationship between proposed subpart HHHHH and MACT rules that are currently under development for source categories in the Surface Coating Processes Industry Group.

In today's proposed NESHAP, we cross-reference pertinent existing rules to maintain consistency with other Federal standards. Subparts GGG (the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP) and SS (the Generic MACT) contain requirements for emissions sources that are similar to those found in these source categories. These existing standards reflect the current Agency positions that have been developed through numerous rulemaking efforts. By maintaining consistency with these existing standards, we believe we have reduced the burden to regulators and industry in limiting the amount of material that must be understood in order to comply. However, we are interested in your specific suggestions for reducing the overall burden of the NESHAP without jeopardizing their enforceability or our overall emission reduction goals.

Because of the broad applicability of proposed subpart FFFF, another issue with regard to the relationship of these rules to other existing MACT rules is that applicability could appear to fit more than one source category in some cases. We have, therefore, included options that allow compliance with one rule in cases where dual MACT coverage of the same affected source might occur. For example, we are allowing affected sources with equipment subject to the equipment leak standards or wastewater standards contained in subpart GGG to comply with the proposed subpart FFFF for all such equipment. Lastly, we have also included provisions that allow compliance with the provisions of these standards in cases where other rules overlap and affect the same affected sources. These provisions apply to sources that must comply with RCRA requirements at 40 CFR parts 264, 265, and 260 through 272; NSPS requirements at part 60, subparts Kb, III, NNN, and RRR; and NESHAP requirements at part 63, subpart H.

Coatings manufacturers are not only potentially subject to proposed subpart HHHHH, but their products and production operations may change as their customers demand coatings that will comply with the requirements of MACT rules for source categories in the Surface Coating Processes Industry Group. Therefore, the coatings manufacturers have requested that we coordinate the timing of the various surface coatings MACT rules and subpart HHHHH so that they have a chance to assess how their production operations may change. We recognize this concern, and we will attempt to coordinate the timing of these rules, while also considering our obligation to promulgate all MACT rules by May 2002 so that States are not required to develop MACT on a case-by-case basis. We are also soliciting comments on how best to coordinate these rules.

I. What Types of Comments Are Being Specifically Requested by the Administrator?

The Administrator welcomes comments from interested persons on any aspect of the proposed rule, and on any statement in the preamble or referenced supporting documents. The proposed rule was developed on the basis of information available. The Administrator is specifically requesting factual information that may support either the approach taken or an alternate approach. In order to receive proper consideration, documentation or data should be provided. This section requests comments on specific issues identified during the development of the standards.

1. What Comments Are We Soliciting on MACT Floor Determinations?

We are requesting comments and data on establishing the MACT floor for processing vessels in coating manufacturing at new sources. The new source MACT floor for processing vessels is 95 percent reduction of HAP for stationary and portable vessels that have a capacity greater than 250 gallons. Seven facilities reported control levels for stationary processing vessels of 95 percent or greater. Two of these facilities reported control levels for portable vessels of 95 percent and greater. Two facilities reported control levels of 99 percent. These processing vessels include removable and fixed roofs and are controlled by thermal oxidizers, carbon adsorbers, and condensers. We determined that 95 percent reduction represents the control level for the best controlled source with consideration given to similarity of sources and total HAP emissions control. For example, one facility reported 95 percent control device efficiency for their portable and stationary vessels equipped with fixed roofs and vented to a thermal oxidizer. We seek comments and data on the representativeness of the facilities as similar sources on which the proposed new source MACT floor is based and the feasibility of controlling emissions from all process vessels at a facility at the proposed 95 percent control level.

We are requesting comments and data on establishing the MACT floor for stationary process vessels at existing coating manufacturing sources. As discussed earlier in this preamble, the proposed MACT floor consists of a cover on the vessel and venting exhaust to a control device that reduces emissions that it receives by at least 60 percent. This control level represents the average of the control levels for the best performing 12 percent of stationary process vessels. We used the average, or mean, instead of the median because the control device efficiencies represented a fairly even, though wide, distribution and a representative control device is available at the mean. However, a large number of vessels in the top 12 percent were not controlled. We are requesting comments on whether the central tendency of the best performing 12 percent of stationary process vessels should be represented by the mean or the median. The median control level achieved for the best performing 12 percent of the vessels is 80 percent. The mean, which is derived by averaging the control efficiencies of both controlled and uncontrolled facilities, results in a level of control that is not actually achieved by any control device in the MACT floor dataset, although the mean is readily achievable with a representative control device for this industry (

i.e.,

condenser). The median represents both a central tendency and a level of control currently being achieved with add-on control. We are soliciting comments on whether we adequately characterized the MACT floor level of control for process vessels at coating manufacturing facilities.

We are requesting comments and data on the basis for establishing the MACT floor for continuous vents in miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing at existing sources. As

discussed previously in this section, the MACT floor for continuous process vents at existing sources is 98 percent reduction for vents meeting a TRE of 2.6. The MACT floor determination was based on 5 facilities which represented the top 12 percent of the sources. The data used to determine the MACT floor were collected prior to 1996, and in order to move forward with rule development we have not continued to update the information. It has recently come to our attention that some of the data may have changed. Specifically, a plant used in the floor calculation may have closed down. We are soliciting comments on whether we adequately characterized the MACT floor level of control for continuous vents at organic chemical manufacturing facilities.

We are requesting comments and data on establishing the MACT floor for equipment leaks for organic chemical manufacturing sources. We have information on 229 facilities indicating that the LDAR program implemented at 30 facilities is the HON LDAR program or a program equivalent to the HON. We are soliciting comments on whether we adequately characterized the MACT floor level of control for equipment leaks from organic chemical manufacturing.

2. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Definitions?

We are soliciting comments on the definitions of “batch process,” “process vent,” “isolated intermediate,” and “family of materials” in the proposed subpart FFFF. The first two definitions are similar to the definitions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, where a “process” means all equipment which function to produce a product or isolated intermediate, and an “isolated intermediate” means the product of a process that is stored before further processing. Two important differences between subpart GGG and the proposed subpart FFFF are that precursors are not relevant in the proposed subpart FFFF and that the term “process” in the proposed subpart FFFF applies to a family of products. Because the batch process vent standard in the proposed subpart FFFF applies only if the process vents from a single process emit 10,000 lbs/yr HAP; the definition of process is very critical to applicability determinations. It is our intent that the end of a process is marked by long time storage, storage for the purpose of shipping product offsite, or storage for the purpose of building inventory. A process is not an intermediate step in the continuous sequence of steps to produce a final product. In addition, we believe that production of chemicals that vary only slightly in molecular structure, functional groups or other characteristics and are produced by procedures that have essentially identical emission sources and emission stream characteristics should be considered as one process. We use the term “family of materials” to describe these types of materials, and the production of these similar products must be grouped into one “process” for the purposes of complying with the proposed subpart FFFF. In stakeholder meetings, industry representatives have stated that the proposed definition is not clear regarding which types of products must be included in a family. One suggestion was to include specific criteria about the product characteristics, emissions, and processing steps that materials must have in common in order to be part of a family of materials. Therefore, we are soliciting comments on applicable criteria or other ways to clarify this definition.

According to the proposed definition of “process vent” in subpart FFFF, emission streams that are undiluted and uncontrolled containing less than 50 ppmv HAP are not considered process vents. We are requesting comments on the emission stream to which the 50 ppmv criterion should be applied for batch process vents. One approach would be to apply it to each emission episode (

e.g.,

vapor displacement, purge, drying, etc.) in a process, regardless of the point from which it is emitted. Another approach would be to combine all of the emission episodes that are released from a particular point (

e.g.,

vapor displacement and depressurization from a reactor vent), and determine the average concentration for the aggregated stream. We are interested in data for a situation where one emission episode has a concentration above 50 ppmv, but all other emission episodes released from the same point, and the combined stream for the emission point, have concentrations below 50 ppmv. We are interested in rationale supporting the choice of either of the presented approaches or any other approach.

We are requesting comments on the definition of “coating manufacturing” in § 63.7985(b) of the proposed subpart HHHHH. It is not our intent to include end-users in the definition of manufacturers; however, several end-users have mixing operations similar to the activities of coating manufacturers with comparable HAP emissions. To address these operations, we are considering developing requirements for a separate class of coating manufacturers who produce the coating for captive use. We do not have data to show there is a floor for such operations, but we are evaluating the costs to control the emissions. We seek comments on costs to control emissions from, and an appropriate size cutoff for, such a class of manufacturers.

For both miscellaneous coating and organic chemical manufacturing facilities, the term “cleaning operation” is defined as in 40 CFR 63.1251 as “routine rinsing, washing, or boil-off of equipment in batch operations between batches.” As discussed in sections II.D and III.C, “cleaning operations” are considered to be part of the process in which the cleaning operations occur and are subject to the same requirements as any other process step. Cleaning the exterior of equipment is not considered to be part of the “cleaning operations,” and emissions from cleaning an existing portable vessel are not required to be controlled under the proposed rule. We are soliciting comments on the approach. Specifically, we are interested in information on cleaning procedures (

e.g.,

whether tanks have automatic wash systems and/or have to be washed by hand; whether tank lids or covers have to be taken off and remain off to gain and maintain access for workers), venting during cleaning, and any additional costs of controlling emissions during the cleaning step as part of the process.

3. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Standards That Overlap?

Compliance options for chemical manufacturing facilities subject to both the proposed subpart FFFF and another subpart are in 40 CFR 63.2535. Multipurpose equipment subject to standards under the proposed subpart FFFF may also be subject to standards under another rule. Such is the case with equipment leaks. To minimize the compliance burden, we have included provisions that allow you to comply only with the equipment leak provisions in the proposed subpart FFFF for all equipment subject to subparts GGG and MMM at a facility with an affected source under the proposed subpart FFFF. We are requesting comments on other areas where different standards may overlap, the difficulties posed by such overlapping standards, and ways to reduce the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden of complying with the requirements of the proposed subpart and another subpart.

4. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Pollution Prevention?

We are soliciting comments on the pollution prevention alternative standard for miscellaneous organic

chemical manufacturing in proposed subpart FFFF. The pollution prevention standard uses the same format as the standard in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG. We especially seek information on alternative measures of source reduction and pollution prevention. Note that since the TRE for continuous vents is applied after the last recovery device, pollution prevention is already incorporated into the standard for continuous processes.

No such pollution prevention alternative is currently proposed for coating manufacturers; however, since the proposed rule for coating manufacturers does not apply to coatings that contain less than 5 percent HAP, reformulation is a possible pollution prevention alternative. We are soliciting information and comments on pollution prevention alternatives for coating manufacturers.

5. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Testing?

Subpart GGG contains testing requirements that differ depending on the amount of HAP treated; for example, if a control device receives less than 10 tons per year HAP, then a performance test is not required. We are considering similar requirements for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing facilities. We seek information on practicable testing procedures for batch processes and comments on testing provisions in subpart FFFF.

6. What Comments Are We Soliciting on MACT Standards for Process Vessels at Coating Manufacturing Facilities?

The process vent standard for the proposed subpart HHHHH applies to each stationary process vessel greater than 250 gallons. The standard for stationary vessels includes the work practice standards for closed vent systems as required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. We are requesting comments and data on the types of vent systems used on process vessels to capture emissions from the vessels in coating manufacturing facilities with control devices; the costs associated with the installation of such systems; and any problems encountered where closed vent systems are in use, for example, involving worker health and safety issues; the ability to capture all emissions from the vessel; drawing out and evaporating solvents from the coating mix in the vessel, thereby affecting product; and interfering with the ability to add raw material to the vessels.

We are requesting comments on alternative formats for the standard that applies to stationary process vessels in proposed subpart HHHHH, such as a standard that applies to all processing vessels as a whole instead of each vessel individually. In considering alternatives, we will examine other formats to ensure that compliance can adequately be demonstrated and acceptable records can be maintained. Further, we are requesting information on the application, effectiveness, and cost of alternative control technologies or approaches for process vessels.

As already noted, the emission reduction requirements in the proposed subpart HHHHH represent an overall HAP control efficiency for the process vessel. Overall control includes capture efficiency of emissions from the process vessels' vented cover or lid through the closed vent system and the recovery or destruction efficiency of the control device. We seek comments on demonstrating compliance for overall control of HAP from process vessels.

The cost of the standard for stationary process vessels is based on several assumptions. The representative control technology is refrigerated condensation. For sizing purposes, we assumed no more than five vessels would be filled simultaneously. The modeled vent stream was saturated with toluene. The flowrate was assumed to be 100 scfm. The cost of the refrigeration units were estimated using the model developed for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. We are requesting comments and information on these assumptions and model, the characteristics of vent streams from process vessels, and the costs associated with the proposed standards.

7. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Explosives Production?

As discussed in section III.A., we are soliciting comments on whether process vent emissions from explosives production processes should be treated as a separate class of emission streams subject to a lesser degree of control than that required for process vents from other types of processes in the source category. For example, we are specifically soliciting comments on the performance achievable and costs associated with using condensers, although we are also interested in information about other types of controls. One option we are considering is control based on the use of condensers operated at the default temperatures that are being proposed for coatings manufacturing, and we are soliciting comments on whether these default values (or others) would be appropriate for some or all of the processes in the explosives production industry. If we do develop standards for process vents from explosives manufacturing as a separate class of process vents within the source category, we need to be able to clearly define the affected processes. Because explosives are often referred to as “energetics,” we are considering using this term to define the class of processes, and we are soliciting comments on what the definition of “energetics” should be.

8. What Comments Are We Soliciting on the Emission Estimates for Coating Manufacturing?

We are requesting data and information on HAP emissions from process vessels and other process units at coating manufacturing facilities. The AP-42 emission factor for paint manufacturing is 30 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOC) per ton of product. The AP-42 has an emission loss factor of between 1 percent and 2 percent for paint mixing operations. We used 1 percent of the total HAP throughput at the facility to determine the uncontrolled HAP emissions from process vessels. The industry has stated their preference to base HAP emission calculations on the “Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Paint and Ink Manufacturing Facilities” chapter of “Stationary Point Source Emission Inventory Development” prepared as part of the Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). The EIIP is a jointly sponsored effort of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO) and EPA with the stated goal to provide cost-effective and reliable inventories. The preferred method is the use of emission models, and alternative methods are the use of emission factors, material balances, and test data. We believe that emission factors and material balances apply more to an entire process, emission models and test data apply most often to only a step in the process and therefore may not account for all losses. To develop a valid estimate of uncontrolled (or baseline) emissions using the emission models for material loading, heat-up, surface evaporation, and vessel cleaning, we would need to obtain a considerable amount of additional data. For example, we would need to know the typical number of vessels through which the material travels in production processes, the temperature of heat-up and the number or percentage of processes that have a heat-up step, the number of batches per year, the frequency of cleaning, and the volume of material used in cleaning. Material

balances, however, by their very nature, account for all losses. Other, more resource-intensive methods, also can account for all losses. For example, losses from process vessels and equipment leaks from equipment enclosed in a building could be estimated if the building exhaust concentration and flows could be measured accurately. However, a material balance would be easier to do, since input data such as accounting records and material product specifications are presumably already available. Therefore, we believe that an emission estimating procedure that has been validated with material balance data will provide the most accurate method for estimating emissions. Without material balance data or other more robust methods, we think that the AP-42 emission factor best estimates total HAP emissions and gives results most consistent with the definition of major source in section 112(a) of the CAA as well as in § 63.2 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A.

We are soliciting comments on the foregoing approaches, and because we do not have the necessary information for the coatings industry to use more robust methods, we are requesting data and information on HAP emissions from process vessels and other operational units at coating manufacturing facilities as well as mass balance data to help us develop more representative emissions factors, including factors specific to this industry.

9. What Comments Are We Soliciting on the MACT Standard for Equipment Leaks at Coating Manufacturing Facilities?

Equipment leak HAP emissions from coating manufacturing were estimated using the same emission factors used for organic chemical manufacturing because we lacked initial leak frequency data. Without industry specific leak rate data, we have no basis for using anything other than the AP-42 emission factor for equipment leaks. Therefore, we are soliciting initial leak frequency data to help us develop emission factors for equipment leaks in coating manufacturing operations.

In light of the paucity of leak data from coating manufacturing operations, we are considering providing an alternative to compliance with the HON-equivalent equipment leak requirements in the proposed subpart HHHHH. The alternative would reduce emissions beyond the floor level of control by requiring covers on all process vessels. Instead of complying with the leak detection and repair (LDAR) program in 40 CFR part 63 subpart UU, which is similar to the HON requirements, the owner or operator would choose to comply with the MACT floor (a sensory LDAR program as required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart R) and cover all open process vessels at the affected facility (

i.e.,

including all vessels equal to or smaller than 250 gallons that are not subject to the requirements for process vessels). Under this alternative, we envision an LDAR work practice standard that requires the following: (1) Performing a monthly leak inspection of all equipment in HAP service, using detection methods incorporating sight, sound, and smell; (2) inspections that are conducted during periods when the process is operating; (3) initial attempts at repair are made no later than 5 days after leak detection, and repairs be completed within 15 days of leak detection, unless delay of repair is allowed based on a demonstration that repair in this time period is not feasible; and (4) all portable and stationary process vessels with a capacity less than or equal to 250 gallons are equipped with a cover or lid that must be in place at all times when the vessel contains a HAP. The covers or lids could be of solid or flexible construction, provided they stay in place. To demonstrate initial compliance, you would be required to maintain a log with a list of the equipment, a diagram, or some other means of identifying the number of components and their location, and you would be required to note in your Notification of Compliance Status that you have the required covers for the small process vessels. To demonstrate continuous compliance, you would be required to record in the log the identity of the leaking components (either individually or by area), the date of leak detection, and the date of repair, and you would be required to sign the log book after each inspection to verify completion and accuracy. This alternative, including both the sensory LDAR program and the requirement to cover vessels less than 250 gallons, would go in entry 1. in Table 4 as an alternative work practice standard for each piece of equipment that is in organic HAP service and is not described in 40 CFR 63.1019(c) through (e). We are requesting information on the effectiveness and cost of covering all tanks less than or equal to 250 gallons. Information that would assist us in estimating the effectiveness of this alternative includes types of flexible covers used by the industry, industry practice of using covers on small vessels, cost of covers, and the typical number of small process vessels relative to the total number of process vessels (or relative to the number of process vessels greater than 250 gallons) at a facility.

We are soliciting comments and data on both control alternatives. Whether we promulgate one of the two alternatives or both alternatives will depend on the comments and data we receive and the results of the regulatory impact analysis.

10. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Coordination of MACT Standards Affecting the Coating Industry?

As discussed in III.H., we recognize that coating manufacturers may have to change their production processes in response to demands for different products that will comply with the MACT standards for surface coating application. We intend to coordinate the promulgation of subpart HHHHH and the coating application rules to the extent possible, recognizing that we must promulgate all MACT standards by May 2002. Therefore, we are soliciting comments on ways to coordinate the timing of these rules.

11. What Comments Are We Soliciting on Wastewater Standards for Organic Chemical Manufacturing?

Representatives of the chemical industry have suggested that it would be more appropriate to regulate wastewater streams containing mostly or entirely soluble HAP compounds differently than streams containing significant amounts of partially soluble compounds. They have submitted examples of wastewater streams that do not volatilize appreciably while in open sewer lines en route to the biological tr

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.